There are challenges that the insurance industry faces, even though it can look like a licence to print money, Since the Big Bang of the nineties, when deregulation allowed the industry to flourish, insurance now accounts for 2.5% of UK GDP. Not bad money for an industry that is a cost to society, rather than a benefit.

Until now the business model has been simple; charge a premium based on the risk profile of the customer, avoid high risk customers altogether and invest the payments you receive in the markets to make even more money. And, unfortunately, payout when someone makes a claim, but keep the legal profession gainfully employed to ensure that doesn’t happen too often.

If you find claims are rising, imply put up th premiums next year. Which is why we’ve had several years were premiums have grown significantly faster than inflation. The consequence of that is people from lower- and middle-income households simply can’t afford the insurance, so they avoid it altogether or under-insure.

Phil and Steve discuss the merits of government-run insurance. We already have it in health, of course. The problem with having it applied more broadly is that it won’t alert us to the impact of climate change. As insurance moves from covering us for episodic events, to systematic change, the business model folds. Steve’s hope is that, as this happens, the industry starts to squeal and wakes us all up to the profound impact of climate change. It acts as the canary in the coal mine and becomes the first industry to lobby for us to take it seriously. Although, with them still enjoying healthy profit margins, it’s not happening yet.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pandemic killed 200 thousand people in the UK. Are we ready for the next time? Experts reckon will be even less prepared should we see another pandemic in the near future. Prof Tom Koch from the University of British Columbia reckons we don’t have long to wait - the next one could strike in the next five to eight years.

If you were a virus with an understanding of how economics is taught, this is exactly how you would have planned it. Yet governments to spend a fortune on the first blow, knowing they would spend the intervening years trying to pay back the debt, rather than spending new money on the preventative measures to dampen the impact of the second blow.

If we had a clearer understanding of how fiat currencies function, maybe we would be better prepared. Meanwhile Steve has a mask he can sell you.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Economists seem conditioned to think that we need to suffer before an economy can get back on track. They argue an economy can’t grow if there is a large amount of accrued government debt. That the economy needs confidence to grow, and the confidence won’t exist the government owes a lot of money.

Phil suggests to Steve that confidence and the private sector’s a willingness to invest are two staple requirements for economic growth. A government deficit will also help, but does it really help in terms of the growth in the money supply as much as private borrowing? And isn’t a growth in the money supply essential to growth?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear to just about everyone that we won’t reach the climate targets set out in the Paris agreement. It was a pipe dream even before President Trump  v2.0 came along. The various COP summits, which rely on agreement from everyone, are nothing more than gabfests. They are a COP-out. This was recognised in a paper this month from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, entitled ‘The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change’.

There are some sound observations, says Steve, but it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t recognise is the mismatch between climate scientists and economists. Climate scientists believe global warming could ultimately be an extinction level event, he says, whereas economics see it having a relatively minor impact on GDP.  The more we listen to the economists the more likely the climate scientists will be right.

There’s one positive takeout from the paper though. It recognises that we need breakthrough solutions. But that’s likely to come from high cost, high risk investment. Who is going to pay for that?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear that President Trump lied to the American people about his reciprocal tariffs. Many of the countries he is imposing tariffs do not impose anywhere near those numbers on imports from America. As Phil points out, some countries, like Cambodia, that sell cheap goods to the US don’t buy from the US because they can’t afford to on their low wages. You can only have trade equalisation if you have similar income levels.

Steve takes us through the formula that was sued to calculate these ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. The only resolution to the issue, says Steve, is a new currency for international trade. An idea the Americans knocked back at Bretton Woods.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s likely that many countries around the world will face import tariffs in retaliation for imposing a value-added-tax on American goods sold in their own country -  alongside other goods, taxed equally, that are not from America. As Steve outs it this week, “What tortured brain cells have communicated to other tortured brain cells to make a proposition that VAT on imports from America is discriminatory”.

Still, it looks like it might happen. And how do you resolve that situation. Do you get rid of a value added tax? Phil asks whether that could be a good thing. It’s unfair, complicated, bureaucratic and easily avoided. Would we all be better off with a transaction tax?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are we kidding ourselves when we talk about an energy transition? Sure, we are using more renewables than ever before, but the planet is also using more fossil fuels than ever before. Phil asks Steve whether part of the problem is that we pout faith in incumbent energy companies managing that transition. The way BP and others have switched focus back on fossil fuel exploration shows how ill-conceived that expectation was. But, irrespective of who drives the transition, is it too much to expect that we will leave energy untapped. If renewables provide a new source of energy, won’t we just use up more energy, because the more there is the greater the productivity, the better off we are.

Watch the video of the podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArfsehlKMo8&t=2s

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a recent podcast Phil suggested that bringing manufacturing home to America won’t necessarily create jobs, because most factories will be automated. They just need one man and a dog, he said. The man to turn the machine on, and the dog to make sure he doesn’t touch anything else.

That touched a nerve with Brian Hanley has spent his life refining manufacturing processes. The key ingredient suggests, is people. Elon Musk was the latest to try the lights out approach and realised it didn’t work.

Instead, if the US wants to succeed with a competitive manufacturing sector, it needs to look to post-war Japan. Workers were an integral part of the refinement and adaptive nature of manufacturing processes, in part  because of the company-based (rather than industry-speciifc) union structure. Listen in to find out how Japan’s adaptive approach is what’s needed if the US is to develop a successful manufacturing sector.

Two books related to this, that Brian says should be required reading or every economist:

-         Kanban Just-in Time at Toyota by Japan Management Association

-         The Sayings of Shigeo Shingo by Shigeo Shingo

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil asked Steve a lot last week about how bank create money through the loans they issue. But he has been, it’s fair to say, a little less convinced about how government deficits create money. So prepare for a light bulb moment as Steve breaks down the process that sees the government spending more, with more money moved to the private sector, and people buying bonds, effectively with new money.  

They also answer a couple of listeners questions -one on the impact of Donald Trump’s tax cuts, another on crypto and another on a Worgel-like supplementary currency. Which of those creates new money?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.