09.08.2016 Views

SOUTHERN DISCOMFORT

cityam-2016-08-09-1-57a9195964710

cityam-2016-08-09-1-57a9195964710

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CITYAM.COM<br />

TUESDAY 9 AUGUST 2016<br />

OPINION<br />

19<br />

WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS › E:theforum@cityam.com COMMENT AT:cityam.com/forum<br />

:@cityam<br />

LETTERS<br />

TO THE EDITOR<br />

Little sympathy<br />

for savers<br />

[Re: Letters, yesterday]<br />

Mark Taylor writes about long-suffering<br />

savers. In a free market, prices are set by<br />

supply and demand.<br />

Today, across the globe, there is too much<br />

savings: consumers are insecure and savings<br />

rates far higher than pre-2008; companies are<br />

hoarding cash despite bumper profits;<br />

governments have pursued gratuitous<br />

austerity.<br />

Central banks do not manipulate rates, but<br />

react to the reality: if everyone wants<br />

something – in this case a safe asset – its cost<br />

will rise. Savers have themselves to blame in<br />

part for their predicament, though politicians,<br />

policymakers, regulators, and industry leaders<br />

that have not produced growth or inflation are<br />

more culpable.<br />

David Nowakowski<br />

Over to Hammond<br />

[Re: Will the Bank succeed in stimulating<br />

the economy? Friday]<br />

Can I add my wholehearted support to both<br />

Dean Turner and Andrew Sentance. The Bank<br />

of England had to do what it did, but the base<br />

rate cut is symbolic only. And while many of us<br />

may like more QE because our house prices<br />

will go up a bit, its impact on the real economy<br />

will be diffuse and limited.<br />

We’ve seen many years now of low growth<br />

despite monetary policy being as loose as the<br />

lower bound will allow. What we need now is a<br />

substantial fiscal stimulus from government,<br />

borrowing at current historically low rates to<br />

renew our infrastructure.<br />

Now is the time for decisive action.<br />

Peter Hemington, partner, BDO<br />

BEST OF<br />

TWITTER<br />

Correct me if I’m wrong,<br />

but are Labour taking<br />

Labour to court to stop<br />

Labour letting Labour<br />

members from voting in<br />

the Labour leadership<br />

vote?<br />

@MarcherLord1<br />

I see people actually think<br />

Corbyn can win a general<br />

election. Wowsers. Their<br />

come down will be worse<br />

than when I came back<br />

from Ibiza in 07.<br />

@make_trouble<br />

Sales of top end (£2m+)<br />

London homes have<br />

plummeted by 62 per cent<br />

in Q2 says latest Strutt<br />

and Parker research.<br />

@HenryPryor<br />

The UK 10 year gilt yield<br />

drops to a record low of<br />

0.6 per cent as the Bank of<br />

England recommences its<br />

QE programme.<br />

@notayesmansecon<br />

YouGov: Do you think it<br />

was right or wrong for the<br />

UK to leave the EU? Right:<br />

46 per cent; Wrong: 42 per<br />

cent; Don’t Know: 12 per<br />

cent.<br />

@minefornothing<br />

Why do politicians think they<br />

would be better at planning<br />

migration than anything else?<br />

ALARGE number of MPs seem<br />

to believe that net inflows of<br />

330,000 people per year into<br />

Britain are “too high”. What,<br />

then, is the optimal annual<br />

number of net migrants?<br />

Up until recently, the Conservatives<br />

said “tens of thousands” should be the<br />

aim. What’s not entirely clear is why<br />

they felt they had the knowledge to centrally<br />

plan for the right level of people<br />

Britain should admit any more than<br />

the right number of cars or bottles of<br />

wine we should import.<br />

For just as with trade, behind the<br />

aggregate migration statistics lie the<br />

very personal decisions and actions of<br />

hundreds of thousands of individuals,<br />

deciding to relocate for employment or<br />

for love or for a multitude of other reasons.<br />

These decisions can be shaped at<br />

any given time by the macroeconomic<br />

climate here and abroad, individual circumstances,<br />

firms’ desire for certain<br />

workers, and “push” and “pull” factors<br />

related to policy. Trying to cap migration<br />

given the changing scene and the<br />

unknown preferences of individuals<br />

and firms can therefore be extremely<br />

damaging.<br />

Indeed, the cost of immigration quotas<br />

can be seen with a simple example.<br />

Suppose an entrepreneur wanted to<br />

come to the UK and had the potential<br />

to build a business worth billions.<br />

Ludicrously, if he was number 100,000<br />

that year, he’d be kept out.<br />

Of course, given free movement from<br />

the rest of the EU, immigration cannot<br />

currently be “capped” anyway, and trying<br />

to cap net migration with any<br />

degree of precision without also<br />

restricting people leaving the country is<br />

Ryan<br />

Bourne<br />

simply impossible.<br />

So for economic and practical<br />

reasons, it would be better if the government<br />

simply abandoned a quota or<br />

number target altogether. But in the<br />

post-Brexit world, and if we were to<br />

leave the Single Market, it seems likely<br />

that we will see a whole reset in immigration<br />

policy.<br />

In formulating a new framework, two<br />

economic lessons should be borne in<br />

mind. First, all migration controls (just<br />

like controls on trade) have economic<br />

costs. Second, the role of government<br />

should be to set the rules and conditions<br />

to allow free people to make<br />

migration decisions, rather than trying<br />

to set the outcome or quantity of those<br />

decisions with number targets.<br />

Ideally, this would mean lowering barriers<br />

to migration as broadly as possible<br />

but making the UK’s welfare system<br />

more contributory to avoid any welfare<br />

draw factors. It would also mean more<br />

flexible planning laws and markets in<br />

public services, to allow the supply of<br />

these to adjust to changing demand as<br />

the population fluctuates. If neither of<br />

these were possible directly, a migrant<br />

payment could be made to cover a<br />

number of years of public service provision<br />

or to be allocated to development<br />

funds.<br />

But many people seem to want the<br />

role of government in setting the rules<br />

to be much more extensive. An idea<br />

popular among many Brexiteers is an<br />

Australian-style points-based system,<br />

where a government bureaucracy lists<br />

a whole range of criterion, including<br />

on skills, that migrants must meet<br />

before being allowed entry to the UK.<br />

Yet just as with quotas, this assumes a<br />

level of foresight in economic planning<br />

that governments are simply incapable<br />

of. How on earth is a government<br />

department supposed to assess what<br />

skills businesses and the broader economy<br />

require at any given time? How<br />

can a “system” react to the constant<br />

changes in demand the economy faces?<br />

It requires knowledge that is inherently<br />

decentralised, and ignores the possibility<br />

for latent demand for goods and<br />

services, and hence skills, which may<br />

not even exist yet.<br />

The reality would be a policy biased<br />

towards those who meet certain skills<br />

criteria today, ignoring the potential<br />

for many low-skilled migrants to better<br />

themselves. After all, most skills are<br />

developed “on the job” rather than<br />

being acquired in established vocational<br />

training or degrees. These days, most<br />

people’s careers do not entail 40 years<br />

of working in a particular field.<br />

Sadly, even many politicians who<br />

understand the benefits of markets<br />

and free decisions in other areas of life<br />

seem to have a remarkable faith in the<br />

planner when it comes to allowing the<br />

“right people” in. It would be good to<br />

know where this faith comes from.<br />

£ Ryan Bourne is head of public policy at<br />

the Institute of Economic Affairs.<br />

Fountain House,<br />

3rd Floor, 130 Fenchurch Street,<br />

London, EC3M 5DJ<br />

Tel: 020 3201 8900<br />

Email: news@cityam.com<br />

Certified Distribution<br />

from 30/05/2016 till<br />

3/06/2016 is 97,658<br />

Editorial Editor Christian May | Deputy Editor Julian Harris<br />

News Editor Tracey Boles | Digital Editor Emma Haslett<br />

Business Features Editor Tom Welsh | Lifestyle Editor Steve Dinneen<br />

Sports Editor Frank Dalleres | Creative Director David Rile y<br />

Commercial Sales Director Jeremy Slattery<br />

Head of Distribution Gianni Cavalli<br />

Distribution helpline<br />

If you have any comments about<br />

the distribution of City A.M.<br />

please ring 0203 201 8955, or email<br />

distribution@cityam.com<br />

Our terms and conditions for external<br />

contributors can be viewed at<br />

cityam.com/terms-conditions<br />

Printed by Trinity Mirror Printing,<br />

St Albans Road, Watford Herts, WD24 7RG<br />

JOIN OUR PRESTIGIOUS LIST OF WINNERS<br />

Hosted by Julia Hartley-Brewer<br />

THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER, GRANGE ST PAUL’S HOTEL<br />

Nominations for 12 categories are now open.<br />

Visit CityAM.com/awards-nominate before 12 August 2016<br />

to submit your nominations.<br />

THE CATEGORIES<br />

PERSONALITY OF THE YEAR £ BUSINESS OF THE YEAR £ BANK OF THE YEAR £ INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE YEAR £<br />

LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR £ ACCOUNTANCY FIRM OF THE YEAR £ FINTECH COMPANY OF THE YEAR £ INNOVATIVE COMPANY OF<br />

THE YEAR £ DEALMAKER OF THE YEAR £ INVESTOR OF THE YEAR £ ANALYST OF THE YEAR £ ENTREPRENEUR OF THE YEAR

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!