Letter: Economic policy then and now
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: From his pinnacle as the most successful economic forecaster of the Sixties and Seventies, well may Frank Blackaby castigate the Treasury today as 'a sanctuary for second-class intellects' (Letters, 7 October).
Not only did the Treasury fail to warn the Government that the size of the balance of payments deficits made a devaluation of the pound inevitable if it stayed at its artificially high rate within the ERM, but, judging by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Brighton, it has given the Government no clear advice on how to put matters right now.
In Mr Blackaby's day the Treasury advised the government on how to manage demand by what became known as the skilful use of the brake and accelerator so that disastrous balance of payments deficits were avoided while the economy grew. Its success can be measured by the fact that there was no devaluation of the pound between 1949 and 1966, although the pre-election booms were followed by emergency budgets.
As Mr Blackaby points out, running a monthly balance of payments deficit of pounds 1bn was bound to lead to disaster. How can one have confidence in a treasury and government that ignored this simple fact and believed that membership of the ERM made balance of payments deficits irrelevant and traditional management of demand unnecessary?
Yours faithfully,
RICHARD LAMB
Broad Chalke,
Wiltshire
12 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments