An Economist Royal?

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian asks whether there should be a 'economist royal'?  See here.   I suspect he meant to write 'Economist Royal'...

Richard Murphy, whose writings have taken an increasingly partisan and silly tone in recent months, assures us that the difference between the deficit hawks and doves is political sympathy rather than economic theory - see here.  In that I agree with him - although he has outdone himself in unreasoned and unreasonable rhetoric.

The problem is that our last Government spent more than it should have - it spent more than we can afford - it spent more than our children can be expected to afford - and often without thought for the consequences.  It saw expenditure as the answer to headlines and criticism regardless of the cost and regardless of any benefit that could be achieved by that expenditure.

Benefits are paid to people who earn considerably more than national average earnings - to people who pay the top rate of tax!  The absurdity of creating such tax and credit systems is not considered by Richard Murphy - no, he believes that making more sense out of our tax and benefits system to remove such obvious anomalies is 'ugly class politics'. Methinks he betrays his own political sympathies ...

The problem with economics is that very often it is about politics (if not always).  It is no surprise to find someone who supported the last Government and who advises an organisation that calls itself the 'tax justice network' that mainly comprises trade unions and socialists is opposed to getting Government expenditure under control and reversing the splurge of spending that the last Government indulged in in an doomed attempt to avoid defeat at the last election  - equally it will be not surprising to find me, a former candidate for the Conservatives, keen to see Government spending reigned in.

One thing that we should all agree on is that any changes to the tax and benefits systems should be effective and achieve benefits that exceed the costs.  So increases in taxes that cost a lot and achieve little in terms of revenue raised should not be accepted.  Equally, reductions in benefits that target the poorest and cost them a lot at relatively little benefit in reduced expenditure should not be accepted.  All of these things are a balance - and the decisions about what you will support or oppose are essentially political.

To answer Simon Jenkins, I don't believe that there can be an Economist Royal (capitalised or otherwise) - although it would be perfectly possible to appoint one, the problem will be that the person who appoints will chose the person who most closely fits their political viewpoint.