Monetary and fiscal policy should be merged, which in turn changes the role of central banks

Keeping monetary and fiscal policy separate causes economic distortions, thus the two should be merged. That is, in a recession for example, the government and central bank should simply spend more (and/or collect less tax), and fund the latter from new or “printed” money. Merging monetary and fiscal policy necessitates a different relationship or split of responsibilities as between governments and central banks, but this is not a big problem. Plus the new relationship dispenses with an illogical element in the current typical relationship, namely that both central bank and government influence aggregate demand.fiscal policy: monetary policy: distortions: Abba Lerner: central banks: national debt: modern monetary theory: functional finance

Consolidation causes little austerity

There is a widespread view that reducing national debts and deficits, or “consolidating” them, causes austerity or would hinder the recovery. The reality is that reducing structural debts and deficits and “stimulus debts” is easily done without any significant deflationary effects. In contrast, stimulus deficits cannot be reduced in that they are required to deal with recessions, thought they can perfectly well accumulate as extra monetary base rather than as extra debt. Money for the above debt and deficit reduction can be obtained from raised taxes and/or public spending cuts, while making good the deflationary effect of the latter with quantitative easing. As long as the deflationary effect of the former equals the stimulatory effect of the latter, there is little net effect on GDP, aggregate employment and so on. Meanwhile debts or deficits are reduced.consolidation; debt; deficit; austerity; stimulus

The Infrastructure and Other Costs of Immigration

Since 2002, the British Government department responsible for immigration, the Home Office, has claimed immigrants pay £2-5bn more in tax than they withdraw from the public purse. The workings behind this figure omit the cost of the additional infrastructure investments that immigrants necessitate (no small omission). The conventional wisdom is that funding government owned assets is a burden on the community at large, whereas funding private sector business assets is not. However the distinction between public and private sectors is artificial. Thus funding the private sector investments is just as much a burden on the community as funding the public sector. Thus it is the community at large funds the additional private sector business assets that immigrants necessitate. The important distinction is not between public and private sector assets, but between what might be called “communally used” assets (public and private) and assets which only one person or family benefits from, of which housing is much the most important. That is, the community at large does not pay for immigrants’ housing: immigrants themselves do. Assets other than housing in the UK amount to about £30,000 per head. The investment burden on the community is around double this because the typical immigrant has one child shortly after arriving. Immigrants do eventually pay this back – after about a generation. But by that time interest on the debt (which is not paid back) resembles the debt itself. Having arrived at a figure for the investment burden that immigrants impose, there is then the question as to what effect this has on the overall contribution that immigrants make, or burden that they impose. Answering this question involves answering a number of subsidiary questions about what can and cannot be debited to immigration. The four main subsidiary questions are thus. 1. Should the cost of educating immigrants’ children (£7.6bn a year) be attributed to immigration? The Home Office, Migrationwatch and others have disagreed on this for some time. It is shown that Migrationwatch is right: these educational costs should be attributed to immigration. 2. In past years, some Government current spending (as opposed to capital spending) was financed by increasing the national debt. Are immigrants (who have not benefited from this spending) effectively paying interest on this part of the national debt? If so, this would be unfair. It is shown that immigrants are not in fact paying for this past current spending. 3. Several studies have recently claimed that immigrants reduce interest rates. These studies all make the same mistake: they assume that interest rate reductions are the only weapon that governments have to raise demand with a view to employing extra workers (immigrants). In fact it is an expansion of the monetary base over the decades and centuries which has created the extra demand that immigrants necessitate. Moreover, interest rates have to rise a finite amount in reaction to immigration because someone somewhere has to forgo consumption to fund the additional investments that immigrants necessitate. 4. Do remittances reduce real incomes for natives? It is concluded that they do. The final figure for the cost imposed on UK natives by immigrants (about £12bn a year) is tentative, first because quantifying the variables that produce the £12bn is more informed guesswork than accurate measurement. Second, some of the official figures on which the estimate is based could be inaccurate. For example, there is evidence that the official figure for the total value of all assets in the UK could have been underestimated by 100% or more; and the real figure for remittances could conceivably be ten times the official figure. In short the cost imposed on UK natives by immigrants could easily be half or double the above £12bn.Immigration, infrastructure, cost, Musgrave, Migrationwatch, IPPR, Home Office, immigrants, migration, education, children, interest rates, remittances

The flaws in Keynsian borrow and spend

Borrow and spend is a policy with several weaknesses. 1, it involves government borrowing something, that is money, which government can create in limitless quantities any time. 2, the “borrow” part of borrow and spend is deflationary: the opposite of the desired effect. 3, borrow and spend may result in interest rate increases and crowding out. To get round this, governments print extra money and buy back government securities. This is a charade: governments here are engaged in “print and spend” while pretending to effect “borrow and spend”. 4, when borrowings are paid back, the initial reflationary effect is reversed, thus borrow and spend does not have a permanent effect, whereas print and spend does. 5, one of the ways that borrow and spend works is that it supplies the private sector with additional assets (bonds which pay interest). This reduces “paradox of thrift” unemployment. But the private sector actually NEEDS or WANTS these assets, thus there is no need to pay interest to induce the recipients to accept those assets. Put another way, governments should issue zero interest bonds (i.e. cash) not interest paying bonds. 6, Borrow and spend expands the national debt, some of which will be held by foreigners. Paying interest to foreigners when no interest needs to be paid makes even less sense than paying such interest to natives. For the purposes of influencing unemployment and inflation, print and spend is a superior policy to adjusting interest rates because the latter is distortionary.Keynes; borrow and spend; national debt; government borrowing; print money; interest rates;

Pensioners' travel concessions - a misallocation of resources

Everyone has a soft spot for pensioners. This probably explains most peoples’ unquestioning approval of pensioners’ travel concessions. However, it is argued here that concessions do not make sense because pensioners would be better off with the cash equivalent of their concessions. Concessions involve inefficiencies of which the following are the main ones. First, there are good arguments for some subsidies (e.g. health and education). These arguments do not apply well to pensioner travel. For example in the case of health, many people in the absence of the National Health Service would face sudden large bills for medical treatment. In contrast, the bill for essential travel, like going to the shops, is a predictable and modest weekly expense of the same order as the weekly cost of food ( for which pensioners are not given concessions ). Second, about three quarters of the money spent on concessions is wasted in that it goes on transporting those who could afford the full fare or who are on non-essential journeys. In contrast, under a no concession scenario only about a quarter of the expenditure is wasted. Also, concessions are a poor means of supplying transport facilities to pensioners since about a third are not well served by public transport. In contrast, under a no concessions scenario, virtually all less well off pensioners get “transport subsidy money” since this money is contained in an increased state pension. Under a no concessions scenario, pensioners can spend their “subsidy money” on for example home delivery of groceries, taxi trips or subsidising relatives’ car running costs where the latter do the shopping. Fourth, social exclusion is often used to justify concessions. It is shown that abolishing concessions, far from increasing social exclusion, might even reduce it.pensioners; travel; fares; concessions; concessionary; inefficient; waste; bureaucracy

Can Music Make You Sick? Mental health and working conditions in the UK music industry

In recent years there has been a growing body of research that has begun to examine the dark side of our relationship to music. The media understandably concentrate on the more sensational aspects of rock and roll; membership of ‘27 Club’, or the recent public declaration of critically acclaimed dubstep producer Benga as suffering from schizophrenia (Hutchinson, 2015). There is then a tension emerging between the notion that artistry is positive both for the economy and for well-being, and a growing awareness that a musical career is a risky business. ‘Can Music Make You Sick?’ surveyed over 2,200 musicians working in the United Kingdom, and interviewed more than 25 musicians and industry professionals, to explore how they are emotionally experiencing working in the music industry in the United Kingdom. This paper presents findings from this project, which seeks to ask challenging questions of music, and specifically musical ambition and aspirations, in the current climate of precarious labour and hyper competition. Is it possible that musical aspirations are potentially making artists sick

Can Music Make You Sick?

In recent years there has been a growing body of research that has begun to examine the dark side of our relationship to music. The media understandably concentrate on the more sensational aspects of rock and roll; membership of ‘27 Club’, or the recent public declaration of critically acclaimed dubstep producer Benga as suffering from schizophrenia (Hutchinson, 2015). There is then a tension emerging between the notion that artistry is positive both for the economy and for well-being, and a growing awareness that a musical career is a risky business. ‘Can Music Make You Sick?’ surveyed over 2,200 musicians working in the United Kingdom, and interviewed more than 25 musicians and industry professionals, to explore how they are emotionally experiencing working in the music industry in the United Kingdom. This paper presents findings from this project, which seeks to ask challenging questions of music, and specifically musical ambition and aspirations, in the current climate of precarious labour and hyper competition. Is it possible that musical aspirations are potentially making artists sick

Can Music Make You Sick? Music and Depression

In recent years there has been a growing body of research that has begun to examine the dark side of our relationship to music. The media understandably concentrate on the more sensational aspects of rock and roll; membership of ‘27 Club’, or the recent public declaration of critically acclaimed dubstep producer Benga as suffering from schizophrenia (Hutchinson, 2015). There is then a tension emerging between the notion that artistry is positive both for the economy and for well-being, and a growing awareness that a musical career is a risky business. ‘Can Music Make You Sick?’ surveyed over 2,200 musicians working in the United Kingdom, and interviewed more than 25 musicians and industry professionals, to explore how they are emotionally experiencing working in the music industry in the United Kingdom. This paper presents findings from this project, which seeks to ask challenging questions of music, and specifically musical ambition and aspirations, in the current climate of precarious labour and hyper competition. Is it possible that musical aspirations are potentially making artists sick

Can Music Make You Sick? Measuring the Price of Musical Ambition

Grant Hutchison (Frightened Rabbit): “This book should be mandatory reading for every label, booking agent, manager and tour manager in the business of music and touring so we can all better understand what’s really involved in living the life of a professional musician and the role we all have in making that life as liveable as possible” Emma Warren (Music journalist and author): "Musicians often pay a high price for sharing their art with us. Underneath the glow of success can often lie loneliness and exhaustion, not to mention the basic struggles of paying the rent or buying food. Sally-Anne Gross and George Musgrave raise important questions – and we need to listen to what the musicians have to tell us about their working conditions and their mental health" Crispin Hunt (Multi-Platinum Songwriter/Record Producer & Chair of the Ivor’s Academy): “Singing is crying for grown ups. To create great songs or play them with meaning music's creators reach far into emotion and fragility seeking the communion we demand of it. The world loves music for bridging those lines. However, music’s toll on musicians can leave deep scars. In this important book, Sally Anne Gross and George Musgrave investigate the relationship between the well-being music brings to society and the well-being of those who create. It's a much needed reality-check, deglamorising the romantic image of the tortured artist” Adam Ficek (Psychotherapist [Music and Mind]/BabyShambles): “ A critical and timely book which is sure to kick start further conversations around musicians, mental health and the music industry” Joe Muggs (DJ, Promoter, Journalist [Guardian, Telegraph, FACT, Mixmag, The Wire]): “The best guide to what being a musician, and what "the music industry" actually are that I can remember reading... it manages to capture and quantify so much about how we value emotion, creativity, labour, relationships, time, other people, [and] ourselves, in the information economy” Mykaell Riley (Bass Culture, Director of Black Music Research Unit): ‘Whether you’re 16, 60 or any age, one’s relationship with music is for life. For many creatives, for better or for worse, that relationship is the meaning of life. Music might be a universal language, but we could all benefit by being a little more fluent. Can Music Make You Sick … is a great place to start’. ----- It is often assumed that creative people are prone to psychological instability, and that this explains apparent associations between cultural production and mental health problems. In their detailed study of recording and performing artists in the British music industry, Sally Anne Gross and George Musgrave turn this view on its head. By listening to how musicians understand and experience their working lives, this book proposes that whilst making music is therapeutic, making a career from music can be traumatic. The authors show how careers based on an all-consuming passion have become more insecure and devalued. Artistic merit and intimate, often painful, self-disclosures are the subject of unremitting scrutiny and data metrics. Personal relationships and social support networks are increasingly bound up with calculative transactions. Drawing on original empirical research and a wide-ranging survey of scholarship from across the social sciences, their findings will be provocative for future research on mental health, wellbeing and working conditions in the music industries and across the creative economy. Going beyond self-help strategies, they challenge the industry to make transformative structural change. Until then, the book provides an invaluable guide for anyone currently making their career in music, as well as those tasked with training and educating the next generatio