Really like the three principles. 1. Carbon pricing is about behaviour change, not necessarily revenue raising. 2. Needs to be fair to avoid gilet jaunes issues 3. It is just a piece of the puzzle, not the whole jigsaw 2/
(am particularly keen on that last principle: the refuge of the lazy laissez faire thinker - like a particular former chancellor- is "just put a price on carbon, the market will fix it." No. It. Won't. But the price helps) 3/
But principles are fine: what I find dauntingly good is that it shows an understanding of how govt works, what sort of steps it needs to take like:
- start setting price ranges
- steps for regular assessment and accountability
- break into sectors of interest with action plans 4/
as well as detailed work on what transitional steps are needed on existing mechanisms like Climate Change Levy.
Anyway. Disclosure: I work with @jbuckland13 at @FlintGlobal and also used to in No10. So I should not be so bowled over by the quality. But I am. A good read 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This morning I have mostly been investigating the thesis of @billwells_1 - that UK employment usually changes/rises in a way largely independent of GVA. And I find he is right, which may have implications for productivity ... See these sectors, for example: 1/4
If employment is just "doing its thing", rather than (quickly) responding to GVA or GDP, it means that GDP/L, the measure we most often use for productivity, on any one year will be v correlated with GDP. And look - easy to see 2/4
I am wisely warned not to over-interpret these patterns. I also warn others not to act like you can just pull a lever and increase demand in sector X or Y. But in the short term, it does justify Bill's saying - productivity is just a residual. And ... 3/4
Imagine an economy of restaurants, randomly trying different styles. Their outcomes range across a distribution. The winners create jobs, profits and annoying columns about their brilliant entrepreneurialism. The losers go bust. Restaurant eating rises in line with GDP 1/5
Bad policy wonks come along, and look at the top quartile. "If the median performance could match the top restaurants, the industry would be X% bigger" they opine. But of course they can't, not in terms of sales. Orders at Bob's Pizza take from orders at Sheila's Fish 2/
A lot of sectoral/regional analysis of growth hits this fallacy*. Even when someone calculates how much richer society would be if everyone had higher education. The sum of social gains *isn't* the sum of each individual's gain. What was gained at the expense of another? 3/
Here are some staggeringly obvious points about Gross Value Added, employment, and therefore productivity (the first divided by the second). But they might lead to some insight into manufacturing, demand, etc following the excellent @jeegarkakkad thread yesterday 1/9
If you have only data on GVA and employment (L), and want to explain movements in GVA/L (prod), you can quickly see which plays the bigger role. It is GVA, full stop. See these charts, for Total UK economy ... 2/
Bemused southern Remainers like me, about to be befuddled by the Hartlepool poll result, need constant reminders that there are lots of people who really, genuinely, honestly think that the Government did them a massive favour by pushing through Brexit ...
.... rather than, say, that a bunch of wilfully self-destructive people perversely chose to vote against their own interests to punish remote, elite others from the privileged south in an irrational spasm of cultural spite and are still somehow enjoying their vandalism
Why they still think Brexit is helping them is still beyond me, but that they do is surely undeniable
OK, long overdue, overlong thread thinking about Rachel's fundamental question here. My first reaction was to see what I have learned from the responses to my original tweet; is the answer necessarily "more business investment"? 1/18
1st obvious point: not necessarily. Biz inv can be wasted. More formally, it depends on your on marginal productivity of capital, depreciation, etc. Here a chart from a toy model where you pass quite soon the point at which more saving into capital no longer> higher wages 2/