Henry Curr

@curr.bsky.social

Economics editor @TheEconomist. Co-host of Inside Economics. Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. Views mine only. www.henrycurr.com

Oxford Smith School: "if all UK households switched to renewable energy, bills could be reduced by £105-£441 per household per year on average" But read on: "We do not explicitly include the costs of intermittency from the switch to renewables" Ie, those numbers are misleading

The problem with Britain's student loans is they were designed on the principle that middle-high income graduates--except those whose parents paid--should cross-subsidise low-earning graduates, rather than the general taxpayer doing so. Why anyone would think that is beyond me

Brazil's budget situation is dire. It borrows 8% of GDP, mainly to pay for debt interest. The IMF forecasts debts will stabilise in the late-2020s because interest rates will fall by a lot. That is not what markets expect

Bild

Reeves has tried to pin £26bn of tax rises on a forecast that is only £6bn worse, to fund new welfare spending that was not in Labour's manifesto, having promised not to raise taxes on working people. Regardless of the merits of the policies, this is dishonest

The question on everyone’s mind in the market is ‘will the government actually cut spending if it gets a negative fiscal shock’ and the revealed behaviour is that western governments find this extraordinarily hard to do.

"Stop worrying about public debt" says @martinsandbu.ft.com, citing US gross federal interest payments / GDP as being in the middle of the historical range. But that measure includes interest the govt pays to itself. Net interest / GDP is near historical highs. And then look at the forecast...

Bild

Britain should raise not cut the cash ISA limit. There is no good economic argument for taxing the normal return to savings. To quote the Mirrlees review: "by taxing the normal return to savings, we are not taxing the better-off; we are taxing those who spend their money tomorrow rather than today"

Trade deficits just don’t measure what President Trump thinks they do. Why the tariffs are among the most profound and harmful economic policy mistakes of the modern era ⬇️

The striking thing about American hegemony pre-Trump was how robust it had been while America's share of world GDP declined. Now, because it is burning its alliances, America's power is more likely to fall in line with its share of the global economy.

The rupture in the transatlantic alliance would surely justify Labour raising taxes despite its pledges. But the higher defence spending goes the more important it is that taxes are carefully designed to minimise the damage. That means land (ie, council-tax reform) and VAT

It amazes me that people still argue that Britain's fiscal rules are too exacting. Reeves must balance the current budget. With balance defined as a deficit less than 0.5% of GDP. Only in 29-30. And only with >50% probability (54% at the last forecast). The rules aren't tight. The stance is loose

Jonathan Portes@jdportes.bsky.social · last yr.

Extremely sensible advice from @dsmitheconomics.bsky.social "Economic policy is not supposed to be about scrabbling around for small savings in pursuit of a distant target viewed through the cloudiest of telescopes. There are bigger fish to fry." www.thetimes.com/article/ef85...

Either you should want no state pension (ie, the same safety net as for the working-age), or you should want a universal state pension. Means-testing it would greatly discourage saving—and private pension saving is already too low. Plus, it's taxed already.

Many of my critics seem unaware that Denmark has already acknowledged Greenland's right to self-determination (and it is on the road to independence as a result). Taking that right seriously would mean letting Greenlanders freely vote on a lucrative offer were America to make one.