Can High Speed Railways Put The North Back On Track?

The proposed new rail service (named HS2) has got some people in Britain as frustrated as the current service it intends to replace- that is, very frustrated. Yet the government continues to claim that it will ultimately benefit people of the North, by bringing them on a more level playing field with the South and London. So, who is right?

What is HS2?
In a nutshell, HS2 is a planned new rail system that will connect the Northern cities of Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham and the capital, London, with high speed trains. Going up to expected speeds of 250mph, these trains will drastically cut travel times between the North and the South- for example, reducing the length of the Birmingham to London train journey from 1h21m to just 49 minutes.

How HS2 could bridge the regional gap...

This diagram highlights the impact of the North-South divide
in Britain. [The Sunday Times]

If you visit London, it can seem at times a country of its own, separate from the rest of England- with not just its own transport system, but crucially its own thriving economy. In 2014, Office of National Statistics data shows London's GVA (Gross Value Added, a measure of economic productivity) per capita was 42,666. This is a figure well over the national average of just over 25,000 and the North East and North West figures of 18,000 and 21,000 respectively.

There are numerous reasons for London's extraordinary economic performance, such as the presence of some of the world's biggest financial and insurance institutions in the City, but that's a whole other article. What is relevant here is that one of HS2's primary objectives is to redistribute some of this economic activity to the rest of England, especially the North. "HSR can rebalance the economy", according to the taskforce behind the project.

While London has thrived since the 1980s thanks to its blooming services sector, the North has suffered massively as a result of the outsourcing of the majority of the industrial employment that it had relied upon for the past century. Since the 1960s, industrial employment has consistently been falling in the UK- almost a third of jobs in industry were lost between 1983 and 2010 alone.

It is hoped that HS2, in connecting cities of the North with each other and London, will enable businesses to relocate or expand their activity from London to the North. With its extremely high property prices and costs of living, some businesses may seek to relocate to the cheaper but rapidly developing cities of the North if the quick, convenient transport links are in place.

According to consultancy firm KPMG, HS2 could also boost national productivity- creating an "additional output of £15bn per year for the British economy" by 2037.

...and how it could expand the gap....
While there is little debate over whether the North will economically benefit or not from HS2, there is a sizeable question mark over whether the project will effectively realise its target of reducing the regional economic inequality between North and South.

A report from the World Conference on Transport Research analysing the implementations of High Speed Railways in China and throughout Europe, concluded that the profit-orientated nature of the companies running the railway service may be to the detriment of the smaller economies currently along the railway lines from London to the North. According to Vickerman, Loo and Cheng, "the creation of profit-oriented subsidiaries to run high speed rail services may be incompatible with providing a level of service to all potential stations which can impact on their economic development". The idea is that to achieve the quick journey times, between London and Birmingham for example, the railway operators are likely to rule out smaller stations as economically unviable- thus having a negative impact on these smaller economies.

Research suggests that France's high speed rail system
has not significantly reduced regional inequality- in fact,
it may have benefit Paris disproportionately.

Furthermore, some argue that the development of high speed rail and other improved transport links between cities can further imbalance the economic growth in the country towards the city that is most economically developed- in our case, London. Evidence from France has suggested this may well be the case. The HSR rail between Paris, Lille and Lyon contributed to flight and train journeys to Paris increasing by 144%, and those in the opposite direction increasing by just 54%. This study by Daniel Albalate and Germà Bel concluded that HSR has not "promoted... economic decentralization from Paris".

Considering that costs of living are far less up North than in London, it seems reasonable that London would benefit more from an increase in workers. People who want to work in Manchester or Birmingham would be far more likely to live there already, than people who want to work in London. HS2 could open the doors to people wishing to work in London, commuting from the North, but there are very few people who would be willing to live in London and deal with the high costs of living, to commute to work in the North.

In Conclusion...
There is no academic consensus as to whether HSR can reduce regional inequalities. The Government's Sustainable Development Commission argues that "Ultimately, the fairness impacts of a HSR network will depend on the detail of implementation plans", almost acknowledging the argument that HS2 will not effectively rebalance regional inequality, but entertaining the possibility that it can succeed in doing so. However, evidence from implementations of HSR in other countries, such as in France, and the reasoning behind some of the World Conference on Transport Research's arguments suggest that while nothing is certain, in reality, High Speed Rail 2 would be more likely to tilt the game towards London and increase regional disparities within the UK. 

Failures of The American Education System - The American Inequality Series #5

In this final instalment of the American Inequality Series, we analyse how responsible the USA's education system is for the nation's growing economic inequality.

The quality and level of education is seen worldwide to be a strong determinant of an individual's future socioeconomic status. 

fig.1

Take a look at this graphic (fig.1) from the US Bureau of Labour- a clear positive correlation exists between level of education and earnings, and a clear negative with the level of education and unemployment rate. 

According to the Institute of Education Studies, the median earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s degree was $46,900- the equivalent for high school dropouts was less than half, at $22,900. It’s been getting worse for high schoolers: those who have only graduated from high school have seen their real incomes decline by over a quarter in the last 25 years.

So a correlation can be observed, but is there a causality between the two? The general consensus among academic seems to answer yes- in a well-known study by David Card, of UC Berkeley confirms the causality, concluding that “individual returns to education are declining with the level of education”. Education was proven to be a major factor in unemployment during the recent recession- nearly 4 out of 5 jobs lost during the economic crash belonged to workers with a high school diploma or less. Furthermore, 63% of US jobs now require a postsecondary degree- up from 28% in the 1970s. So education, now more than ever, seems to provide a safety net from both unemployment and low earnings.

Sometimes even a bachelor’s degree is not enough: according to Elena Bajic, CEO of online executive job recruitment site IvyExec, “when an employment recruiter looks at an Ivy League degree, they will look at it more carefully”.

Nevertheless, clearly advanced education of some level plays a role in one’s future economic prosperity. The ‘American Dream’ dictates a desire for opportunity for all to become prosperous- so if education is a key (though not the only) to the door from poverty into prosperity, do all Americans have this opportunity?

fig.2

The greatest barrier for many Americans to college education (in particular elite the Ivy League elite) is financial. The Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA observed choices made by students with regards to college- in particular those who had been offered a place at their first choice. HERI noted that only 56.9% of students enrolled in their first choice college in 2013- and compiled the most significant factors for why so many students didn’t enrol in their first choice, even if they got an offer. Fig.2 shows the 4 most notable reasons- all of them centering around college fees highlights how much finances matter to students wishing to go to college.

Public colleges hold relatively little clout over the education ‘market’ of the USA. Only 5 of the top 20 universities in America are public (state-funded)- a damning statistic, though it must be considered that there are almost three times as many private 4 year institutions as there are public equivalents.

But there is still an increasing pressure among the young people of America to go to top universities- and the majority of these are private colleges, whose national average total fees (for a typical four year study) in 2013-14 were $40,917, $9,000 more than the public equivalents. 

Two conclusions can be drawn from this data:

1) The poorest of society are struggling to afford a college education, and therefore are more rarely enrolling. 

2) Those who are only able to afford a public college education remain at a disadvantage when it comes to post-graduate employment.

fig.3

Colleges have attempted to lower economic barriers of entry via financial aid; for example, 70% of students at Harvard University receive such aid from the college. 

However, the effect of this has been minimised by rapidly rising college tuition fees- fig.3 shows how in the past decade, fees have inflated at a rate disproportionate to most other goods and services- and at a strongly contrasting level to real household income, which has in fact fallen in previous years (fig.4). 

fig.4

This has led to a widening gap between education opportunities for the poor and wealthy. The wealthy are mostly in the best position to provide their children with good quality education, which in turn benefits their future income, so they can educate their children well, and so on.

Socio-economic mobility is not dead- successful ‘rags to riches’ stories are not unheard of- however for many lower class people the environment and opportunity is not present to help them succeed academically- and the state of the US jobs market means they often remain poor for their whole life as a result.

Pros & Cons #4: The Minimum Wage

The Minimum Wage is something that has often been a focal point of the left vs right debate over economics and the government's role in managing its economy.

So let's have a look at both sides: both at those who say the minimum wage is an unnecessary, harmful form of government interference, and those who say it is necessary for the welfare of the working citizens of developed nations.

PRO: Worker Protection

Arguably the most significant reason for the existence of a minimum wage is the fact that it can prevent the abuse of workers desperate for employment by lean, restrictive employers. People desperate for a job can often be manipulated by employers into jobs in which the employee is strongly underpaid, often resulting in these people falling into poverty despite being employed. The minimum wage seeks to prevent such people falling into poverty, by giving them a wage that is calculated every few years to be supposedly enough to cover living costs for an individual and perhaps one or two dependents.

A study done by David Neumark and William Wascher of the American National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) concludes that "over a one to two year period, minimum wages increase... the probability that poor families escape poverty" due to the increase in household income post-implementation of the minimum wage.

A higher minimum wage could reduce the need of
food banks like this.

Not only does escaping poverty help those fortunate enough to climb out, though. According to The Centre for American Progress, raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would reduce money spent on federal food stamps by $4.6bn a year, lifting off a great debt on the government.


CON: Shrinking Wages

However, Neumark and Wascher are careful to explain that their findings suggest separate stories for the poorest in society (who will benefit) and the rest- notably those just above the poverty line, who they claim would be harmed by a minimum wage.
An argument exists that the minimum wage could create a 'vortex' effect around the poverty line- while sucking the poorer up to and perhaps over the poverty line, it could simultaneously pull down those above the poverty line.

One could argue that despite the 'spirit' of the minimum wage, that is to raise the living standards of the poor, it could conversely provide a benchmark of acceptable pay for people who should be earning more. A company may reduce the pay it gives to employees to the minimum wage, reducing the income of those perhaps just above the poverty line and according to Neumark and Wascher, perhaps even dropping them below.


PRO: Productivity

Prominent psychologist Ivan Robertson summed this up very simply: "Improved psychological well-being (PWB) leads to a more productive and successful workplace". The link between income and this psychological well-being is further explored in a study by Princeton economists Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton- they conclude that, up to an income of $75k, "emotional wellbeing rises with log income". This means that, to an extent, money does often buy happiness- particularly when we're talking about those on the minimum wage, a figure far less that $75k.

Combining the two conclusions of Robertson, Kahneman and Deaton, it appears that the minimum wage's effect of increasing the wages and thus living standards of those below it can indeed have the effect of increasing productivity in the workplace. Wage is ultimately a great contributor to job satisfaction- and the higher the job satisfaction, the higher the likelihood of an employee being enthusiastic in their work, being present when needed and ultimately being more loyal to the employer.


(?): Lost Jobs

The reason why there's a question mark on this one is because this is perhaps one of the most contentious points in the whole minimum wage debate.

Some argue a minimum wage forces businesses to spend more on staff, meaning many will have to reduce staff numbers to keep the wage expenditure from increasing too much. This means fewer jobs, and consequently higher unemployment.

Their historically low pay has left fast food workers
among the most sensitive to any minimum wage regulation.

According to the American Enterprise Institute, this was the case in Seattle in the first half of this year- during which an increase in the minimum wage to $11 was said by many to have been responsible for the post-recession record loss of 1,300 restaurant jobs in the area. Author of the report Mark Perry highlights in particular how 1,000 of these jobs were lost in May alone, following the minimum wage increase in April- "the largest one month job decline since a 1300 drop in January 2009, during the Great Recession".


On the other hand, there is much evidence to suggest the minimum wage has little impact on unemployment levels generally. A famous study by David Card and Alan Krueger from 1990 compared restaurant employment in neighbouring states New Jersey (where the minimum wage was set to rise) and Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was unmoved). "We find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state", the study concluded.

A study in the British Journal of Industrial Relations set out to test the results found by Card and Krueger in 2009, and concluded the same- that they saw "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment".


CON: Price Inflation

Card and Krueger's findings that minimum wages had little effect on employment, however, did not absolve the minimum wage of any negative impact. In fact, upon investigation they concluded that "much of the burden of the minimum-wage rise was passed on to consumers", when restaurants would increase their prices to compensate for higher wage spending.

The idea of price inflation following minimum wage implementation arguably discredits the notion that the minimum wage causes unemployment. Theoretically, it would seem more likely for a restaurant to not risk all the potential issues that come with a shortage of staff, but instead retain staff (on the new minimum wage or above) and instead make the customers pay for the new burden.

Many businesses have laid the blame for price increases on minimum wage increases. One high profile example was Mexican food chain Chipotle, who, following a minimum wage increase in San Francisco, raised the price of their menu on average by 10%. Here in the UK, following the announcement of a new 'living wage' of £7.20 last month, Whitbread (the group including brands such as Costa Coffee and Premier Inn) announced they would be raising prices as a result of the supposedly "substantial cost increase" of operating as a business under the new minimum wage.

One could argue that such price inflations are simply selfish acts of protest by these businesses against minimum wage regulations that increase their expenses. It probably often is the case- but whether it is a selfish or 'necessary for survival' move, either way prices do increase for us as consumers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt championed the minimum
wage in an economically struggling USA.

PRO: Economic Stimulation

The minimum wage could have positive effects for the national economy, firstly in the form of stimulating consumer spending. A study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank examined 23 years of household spending statistics, concluding that for every dollar the minimum wage increased, the average worker received an extra $2800 for consumer spending. The 2009 study noted that spending on cars in particular increased as a result of increasing the minimum wage.

President Franklin Roosevelt was a huge proponent of the minimum wage for this reason- he famously stated "the best customer of American Industry is the well-paid worker", during his push to enact the federal minimum wage in the USA in 1938, during a recession following the Great Depression.


The Minimum Wage- Help or Hindrance? Put your opinions in the comments below! 

Has Neoliberalism Failed America? The American Inequality Series #3

The practice of neoliberal capitalism in the USA has been the focus of much debate. In this third instalment of The American Inequality Series, we will take a look at two of the key tenets of neoliberal capitalism: the beliefs in the right of the free-market to rule the economy, and in the idea that the pursuit of self-interest will lead to the best outcome for society.

Scottish icon Adam Smith, the 'Father of Modern

Economics', laid the foundations for much of

neoliberal economic theory.

Free markets rule

An idea that has dominated Western economics for quite some time now is marginal productivity theory- the idea of the competitive, regulation-light free market being the best instrument for aligning productivity, social benefits and private returns. Essentially, those who have skills that help them to be more productive will be in more demand in the competitive market- thus their ‘price’ (income, job benefits) will be higher than those incapable of being productivity. 

This meritocratic system is what most people would like- but the key question here is how to achieve this, and marginal productivity theory answers that the free market is most effective in doing so. So to examine their claim further, what are the tenets of free marketism in the USA? Is there a ‘laissez-faire’ approach, where markets are given total free reign, or a more regulated way to keep competition alive?

A popular argument against regulating fast food chains such
as McDonalds has been that the free market will itself find the
best solution over time.

Well, as is often the case, there is no definitive answer. US economic policy is not entirely coherent (no nation’s policy is); for example, observing the lack of regulation over fast food, that has contributed to the quadrupling of adolescent obesity between 1980 and 2012, one would think America is running a free market almost fully dependent on the ‘invisible hand’, that guides resources to where they are most needed by itself. Yet a glance at antitrust laws such as The Clayton Act, that bans the monopolistic practice of merging market dominators, suggests the contrary. 

Individualism

Perhaps the most retold saying of Adam Smith is his thoughts on us as consumers, 

how "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".

Theory states that the businessman inevitably has the contentment of his customers in his own self interests- if he doesn’t make the customer happy, the customer will not return to him and thus the businessman will lose out. So following his self interests will benefit both himself and his customers.

The internet is held often as an example of such a successful self-regulating market where companies such as Google and Facebook have succeeded of their own merit, while others such as ask.com and Myspace have felt the consequences of failing to appease the market.

However, free markets have been seen by many to be against the interests of the ‘customers’. Allowing American companies to outsource employment is a pertinent example. Free international trade has allowed companies (particularly in the primary and secondary sectors) to hire cheaper employment in places like China, resulting in a wave of job losses in America. In the decade 2000-10, US multinationals sent 2.4m jobs overseas, simultaneously putting 2.9m Americans out of work.

Gates' Microsoft dominated the computer market during
the 1990s. 

Monopolies such as that of Microsoft over the IT market in the 1990s highlighted further free market failure- a lumbering giant was unrestrained from crushing competition such as Netscape, resulting in a lack of choice that prevented any market self-regulation from taking place. If people didn’t like Windows or Internet Explorer, there was nothing else they could choose- they had to deal with it, without the democratic power free market theory promised.

Paul Samuelson (the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics), claimed how “utterly mistaken was the Milton Friedman notion that a market system could regulate itself”. And while free market has arguably created the environment for new businesses to prosper, it has failed to live up to its promise of market democracy- as recent monopolistic activity and the loss of domestic employment have shown, the consumers have little power over the market.

Debt And Social Welfare Failures Are Fuelling Wealth Inequality In America: The American Inequality Series #2

The phenomenon of easy access to credit and the debt has been a key factor in the stability of the USA’s modern economy. Borrowing plays a huge role- consider the housing market, whose dependence on the lending industry has drastically increased in the past 50 years; between 1949 and the turn of the millennium, the mortgage debt to household income ratio rose from just 20% to 73%. 

There are many reasons for this phenomenon of ‘credit addiction’- the principle of these being increasingly easy access to credit, changing consumer decisions and the squeezing of incomes. Let’s analyse these and see which contributes most, if at all, to American wealth inequality.

Credit addiction has without doubt been encouraged by the financial sector in America. The subprime market’s recent catastrophic explosion exemplified how open credit has become in the US. The subprime market emerged from a restricted financial industry- previously, banks had to take great care in selecting who they could lend to, to minimise the likelihood of future unpaid debts. This process was rigorous- any previously outstanding debts, or missed payments would almost rule you out of contention for a mortgage.

The subprime market sought to open a whole new world of profitability- opening the door to credit to these individuals who were previously deemed unsuitable to receive a mortgage. The industry boomed- at its peak in 2005 the subprime industry had granted $625bn of loans, contributing to over a trillion dollars in loans made by subprime lenders between 1994 and 2007.

Their open availability made subprime mortgages incredibly attractive- a complex arrangement between financial institution and bond traders meant banks were in little danger if mortgages were to go unpaid. They could benefit from cheap loans, avoiding the traditional risks associated with defaulting customers.

Unsurprisingly, the result was devastating- the recent subprime crisis had severe implications on homelessness for example. According to the National Coalition for the Homelessness (NCH), there were 342,038 foreclosures of US properties in April 2009 alone- a third higher than the already high foreclosure figure of April 2008.

The authorities have also played a role in this disaster- attempting to kickstart the economy following the dot-com crash of 2000, the Federal Reserve cut long term interest rates from 6.5% to just 1%- former Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan admitted that this move “fundamentally engendered” the development of the doomed housing bubble whose explosion caused this economic trouble.

One could argue Western society has developed a culture of debt-accumulation. Availability of finance on any consumer product, from a blender to a Mercedes, has encouraged people to be less financially responsible. You no longer need to take a single heavy hit on your bank account to purchase a car- finance allows the (greater) cost to be spread over a few years. As a result, prices in the short term are lower and thus customers are more likely to be seduced to purchase a car that is beyond their financial boundaries.

Additional interest payments make the situation worse- Jeremy Vohwinkle of GenerationX Finance describes new car purchasing as borrowing money at a high rate of interest to invest it in a stock guaranteed to lose value rapidly. Yet March 2014 saw the average amount borrowed by American car buyers surpass $27,000 for the first time ever. 

The wealthy are not so reliant on financing- cash purchases ultimately cost less and often cars do not represent a significant enough hit on a millionaire’s finances that he has to take a loan for it. 

America’s total consumer debt lies at almost $3.2tn- over $10k per man, woman and child- 67% of this debt being as a result of loans, and 72.5% belonging to the bottom 90% of Americans. This is despite almost half of post-recession consumer spending coming from the wealthiest Americans. 

The ever-present temptation of taking loans, trading short term gain for a greater long term loss, to cover purchases such as cars and more significantly homes, has driven down the economic prosperity of much of the poor and middle class.

Debt has also been piled on by the US’ social welfare system (or lack of one). Take the medical system- a NerdWallet survey found that Healthcare bills were the primary cause of personal bankruptcy. Healthcare is special in this regard because unlike a house or a car, we usually have no choice as to whether we need it or not. After a car accident, one cannot choose not to go to hospital- they are taken by emergency services, and often they wake up to the bill- which they must pay, as they’ve already been treated.

This unlucky 20 year old got charged $55k for an appendectomy.
Even after insurance contributions, he had $11k left to pay.

One could argue that health insurance solves this problem- but even ignoring its ever-rising price (family health insurance topped $16k for the first time ever last year) over 10 million fully insured Americans aged 19-64 are expected to face bills they will be unable to pay in the near future. Plus, as the picture on the right shows, even health insurance can leave a substantial bill for the individual to pay. This idea of healthcare being financially unattainable is something that, while far from being exclusive to the USA, is pretty much unheard of in similarly developed countries like the UK and much of Europe.

These problems are mostly faced by the poorer of society. Like an overly expensive house or car, it adds to personal debt. However, usually being an involuntary expenditure, it can be even more damaging.

How Corporations Are Contributing To Wealth Inequality In The USA : American Inequality Series #1

The power of the Corporate Lobby, according to George Monbiot, is a ‘Great Unmentionable’- rarely discussed in the media or among politicians, it has maintained a firm grip on every level of American policymaking. Not only has it subverted the very system of representative democracy that the West prides itself upon, but it has potentially created conditions conducive to a strong socio-economic imbalance in the States.

Corporate lobbyists have one primary goal- to represent their employers in the political arena, not by competing directly within it but by gaining favour with those already within. 

Outgoing Congressional Speaker John Boehner was seen
handing out cheques on the House floor seeking votes
against the cutting of tobacco subsidies.

Of course, this cannot be done by a friendship alone- since 1998 the nation’s largest lobby, the US Chamber of Commerce, has spent over $1.1bn on lobbying activities. The massive payments involved reflect lobbying’s effectiveness; PepsiCo spent $10m in 2009 lobbying to (successfully) prevent 24 states attempting to pass a soda tax. Even more spectacularly, current House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner was caught handing out cheques to fellow politicians written by a lobbying tobacco company- on the very house floor a debate on cutting tobacco subsidies was to be discussed. The tobacco company saw these payments as an investment to prevent their own subsidies being cut- and, unsurprisingly, the House voted against cutting them. 

But a more appropriate action of the lobby to the topic of economic inequality is the influence of corporations over minimum wage legislation. A minimum wage naturally affects businesses, leading them to either spend more or reduce staffing. However, in a period of constantly inflating costs of living, arguments are being made that minimum wages set by every state are all insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. Governments around the world have sought to address this issue- the British government, for example, recently implemented a 'living wage' designed to provide enough for workers to maintain a decent standard of living.

Housing is a key indicator of living standards- yet in Florida, the minimum wage ($7.93) is less than half of what is needed to rent a two-bedroom home at official ‘Fair Market Rent’ calculations. Similar results arise in every state- the National Low Income Housing Coalition calculates that it would take two minimum wages to afford a Fair Market Rent nationwide, even with many one-bedroom properties.

Corporate taxes have sunk in recent decades as profits
have boomed.

Corporations have repeatedly successfully lobbied for tax cuts- a significant reason why corporate taxes have sunk in recent decades while profits have boomed (see graph). For example, Whirlpool Corporation spent just under $2m in the year 2011-13 in lobby fees chasing the renewal of lucrative tax credits (equivalent to tax breaks) for creating environmentally friendly appliances. The passing of this motion, thanks to the lobbying, was worth an estimated $120m in 2012-13- a healthy return on the initial investment, and government revenue lost. 

Both movements of corporate lobbies to maintain low minimum wages (such as the success of the National Restaurant Association over employees in 2014) and win tax breaks, subsidies and such from the government have drastically exacerbated the issue of wealth inequality- they have made it easier for those higher up in business to profit more, often at the cost of employees lower down.

What Is Corbynomics?

With the results of the UK Labour Party Leadership Elections set to be announced this Saturday, it's time to take a look at the economic policies of one of the candidates considered the frontrunner, and also the furthest to the left, by many- Jeremy Corbyn.

The Islington MP's economic proposals have made such an impact that they have come under the new title of 'Corbynomics'. Though, admittedly, adding 'nomics' to the names of his rivals would lack the front page appeal of this title (especially 'Burnhamnomics', or would it be 'Burnhamomics'?), it is undoubtedly the unique nature of Corbyn's policies in the leadership race that has brought them a name to come under.

So, what are Corbyn's policies, and are they credible? Here are 4 of his policies that are making the headlines.

An End to Austerity

"You just cannot cut your way to prosperity so Britain needs a publicly-led expansion and reconstruction of the economy, with a big rise in investment levels."

Corbyn is a strong opponent to David Cameron and
George Osborne's policy of austerity.

One of the most appealing policies to his supporters on the left, Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to bring an end to the money-saving spending cuts that have been enforced in recent years by the Conservatives.

This means that a government under Corbyn would end spending cuts on public services such as the NHS, the education system and transport- in fact, he would be likely to increase spending on these as demand increases due to a growing and ageing population.

Corbyn would also reverse one of the most controversial austerity tactics, that is the privatisation of public services. He has pledged to renationalise the railway system, and also prevent the further privatisation of the National Health Service.


Reducing Foreign Military Presence

Jeremy Corbyn believes Britain should learn lessons from
an intervention in Iraq seen by many to have failed.

"Thousands more deaths in Iraq ... will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations." (2003)

However, the only cut that Corbyn proposes is with regards to the military. He is a fervent anti-war activist, something highlighted by his strong criticism of past actions such as Tony Blair's move to invade Iraq, and current proposals like those to militarily become involved in Syria. So, a Britain under Jeremy Corbyn would reduce its military presence in areas like the Middle East, thus saving a considerable amount of money.

Furthermore, as a believer in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Corbyn would close down Britain's nuclear weaponry facility Trident, located in Scotland. This would not only save money, but also be a welcome move, considering a significant proportion of Scots are against the facilities themselves. However, some worry that such military contraction would endanger Britain, in what many see as an increasingly threatening world.


'Quantitative Easing for the People'

"QE for people instead of banks"

Banks would no longer benefit from government QE
programmes under Corbyn.

Quantitative Easing is nothing new in government policy, but the manner in which Jeremy Corbyn seeks to implement the divisive policy highlights the new direction in which he seeks to take Britain.

Put simply, in the current system of QE, the Bank of England creates new money that is inserted into the accounts of national banks, with the aim of encouraging these banks to lend more openly and thus stimulate spending in the economy.

Corbyn wishes for the Bank of England to continue creating new money, but proposes that the finances created should not go to the private banks, but a state-owned 'National Investment Bank', that will "head a multi-billion pound programme of infrastructure upgrades and support for high-tech and innovative industries".


National Education Service

Tuition fees have been a source of discontent for many
of Britain's young people. Under Corbyn they would not exist.

"To become a high skill, high pay, high productivity nation we need to invest in education throughout peoples' working lives - that is the path to prosperity for all." 

A significant part of Corbyn's anti-austerity programme would be the increasing of government spending on education. There has been much uproar in the past decade over university tuition fees, first introduced by Labour's own Tony Blair, and increased to as much as £9,000 a year under David Cameron.

Not only would Jeremy Corbyn abolish these tuition fees, but he has also proposed the reintroduction of university grants, which have just been replaced by loans.

Free university forms a major part of Corbyn's 'National Education Service' proposal. This system would see the government increase spending on education (funded by tax increases, government military spending cuts and the economic productivity boost the Corbyn camp believe their policies will bring), in order to make education accessible to all, providing universally free childcare right up to free university.

Supply Side 'Trickle-down' economics- does it work?

Supply-side (or 'trickle down') economics has for the past few decades been one of the discreet tenets of Western economy. It's the belief that giving financial benefits to the wealthiest of society (in the way of tax cuts/breaks, regulatory advantages given to big businesses) will inevitably benefit society as a whole, as the wealth will 'trickle down' the economic ladder in the form of employment, pay rises or whatever else of the extra wealth the richest will generously share with the rest of the population.

It's been a policy the conservatives of America has held ever so close to their hearts, and one that has faced much opposition by the lower and middle classes of America.

So how did trickle-down begin?

A turning point was certainly in the 1980s, during the divisive periods when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were in power in the USA and UK respectively.
Perhaps never have two leaders either side of the Atlantic been so harmonious- Reagan curiously dubbed Thatcher "the most important man in England", and Thatcher once described Reagan as "the second most important man in my life".
The harmony of the two certainly extended to economic policy; both leaders were strongly influenced by the Chicagoan and Austrian schools of economics, the proponents of which included notable anti-regulation, free-marketers Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

Trickle-down was one of their most prominent legacies. Thatcher and Reagan carried out drastic economic changes that were designed towards 'supply-side economics' (another name for trickle-down). The most important relevant policy change was that of tax rate changes.
In the USA, the Tax Reform of 1986 saw the top tax rate for individuals drop from 50% to 28%, partly compensated for by an increase of the bottom rate of tax from 11% to 15%. This was the very first time in the history of the USA that the top rate of tax fell at the same time as the bottom rate rising.
In the UK, Thatcher followed suit by dropping the top rate of tax from 80% to 63%, meanwhile almost doubling VAT (Value-added tax) and the amount everyone had to pay to fund the National Health Service. However, she did indeed drop the common tax rate from 33% to 30%.

So what were effects of these trickle-down policies?
Let's remember, the motivation supposedly behind trickle-down economics was that the population as a whole would benefit from the wealthy being wealthier. The idea is that as the national wealth pie grows as a result of the richer getting richer, everyone else's pie would simultaneously grow as a result.
So has it worked?
Well, a certainly interesting effect is encapsulated well in the following graphic:

Comparison of wages of the top 1%, overall wages and productivity.
(Mother Jones) 

Note the real separation point on the graph, where the average income of the top 1% really lifts off- it's after the turn of the decade, through the 1980s- conveniently the decade of Reagan's presidency.

Note not just how the income of the top 1% rises incredibly, that as productivity increases the average overall wages of the population lags behind, barely increasing in relation to the other two factors in the chart.
The meaning of this is pretty unpleasant- the 'pie of wealth' may have increased, but this chart suggests that more prominent has been a relocation of sorts of national wealth.
The wages of the overall population has suffered since the 1980s when it is considered that productivity has boosted- the overall population have not benefited in terms of wages from this increase. Instead the wages of the wealthiest have been boosted far more than before the 80s.
CEOs in 1965 made 24 times more than the average production worker- in 2009, this figure was 185.

It seems clear that wages of the middle and lower classes, contrary to the motives of supply-side economics, have suffered as a result of the policy- meanwhile clearly the wealthiest have benefited HUGELY.

So why haven't most of the population benefited- a key belief of the theory is that it's better for everyone if the wealthy are wealthier, right?

Buffett has been a prominent opponent
of trickle-down economics.

Here there is a great fault in the trickle-down ideology- reduction in the taxes enforced upon the wealth is itself no guarantee of further reinvestment into the economy.
This is because the benefits are being given to people who are not in need of it. Little is in the way of CEOs creating new jobs to further production- most already have the capital available to invest where they see fit.
Warren Buffett (pictured right), one of the wealthiest men in the world, and perhaps the most prolific investor claimed "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off". Taxes are rarely a stumbling block for the wealthiest, who are willing to take risks to invest (most entrepreneurs are where they are now as a result of their calculated risks).
Therefore tax cuts to the wealthy rarely open the doors to new investments. Instead it leads to simply a further amassing of wealth by the wealthy. By no means will the wealthy invest everything they benefit from tax cuts, to the gain of the middle and lower classes as the theory suggests. A staggering example of this is how currently the top 1% of wealthiest people in the world control 39% of the world's wealth. This is a clear sign of a broken global system, a large part of which is thanks to trickle-down.

Trickle-down, supply-side, Reaganomics, whatever name it is called, is a lie.

The solution lies not in blessing the wealthy with benefits and hoping that it will filter down to the rest of society, but the solution lies in the middle class. We need to make the middle the centre of our economic system, and see middle-out growth that will benefit everyone (yes, including the wealthy).

Middle-out. That is the solution we need.

Sources for this article can be found linked within.

7 Shocking Facts about Economic Inequality in the USA.

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4QkvGJgDoc

The GDP growth rate in the United States of America has averaged 3.27% between 1947-2014- such a growth rate is a sign of a healthy, thriving economy. And certainly the USA's economy has thrived, but have its citizens enjoyed their fair share of the pie?

It appears not; wealth inequality has become one of the major problems in the US; numerous presidents have come and go promising reform on the matter, but little effective change has been made. 

Here are some shocking facts about just how bad the problem of economic inequality is in the USA right now.

1. CEO PAY (Business Insider)

Between 1990 and 2005, CEO pay had tripled- meanwhile the minimum wage dropped, and the pay of the average production worker increased just 4%.  
CEOs in 1965 made 24 times more than the average production worker; whereas in 2009 they made 185 times more.

2. THE USA IS THE MOST UNEQUAL ADVANCED ECONOMY... IN THE WORLD (Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook)

The USA's GINI coefficient (the most widely accepted mathematical calculation of economic inequality) is the highest of all developed economies- at 85.1%, this high GINI scores confirms America's place as the most economically unequal developed country in the world. To compare, the UK scored a modest 67.7%, China 69.5% and India 81.1%. 

3. "THE POOR STAY POOR, THE RICH GET RICHER" (Emmanuel Saez., Berkeley)

In 1982, the top 1% families in terms of salary were earning 10.8% of all income in the USA (pre-tax)- the bottom 90% received 64.7%. 
However, in 2012 the top 1% received 22.5% of pre-tax income- while the share of the bottom 90% dropped to just 49.6%.

Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez also estimates that between 2009 and 2012, the time of America's 'economic recovery', the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of total income growth.

4. CLOSE, BUT NO BISCUIT (MOTHER JONES) 

This drop in share of wages experienced by the bottom 90% comes despite the fact that productivity has drastically increased in recent decades- though this is also attributed to developments in work methods, technology- Americans are more productive today than ever- yet overall wages have overall stagnated. 

This graph shows quite clearly who has benefited from the increase in productivity.

Had median household incomes kept up with the growth of the economy since 1970, they would be around $92,000. The current median wage being $50,000 is quite a clear indication that something is out of balance.

5. DEEP IN DEBT (Domhoff, UCSC)

Meanwhile the bottom 90% enjoy responsibility of 72.5% of the US' debt, as opposed to the paltry 5.9% held by the top 1%.

6. HOMELESS AMERICA (Western Regional Advocacy Programme)

An estimated 22,000 children live homeless on the streets of New York City alone; the largest such number since the time of the Great Depression. But these children represent just a part of a nation wide problem, with roughly 1.2 million children being reported homeless in March 2014.

7. THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE? (Saez., Kopczuk., Song., Columbia University)

Despite the grand vision of the 'American Dream', the 'land of opportunity', since the 1950s probability of socio-economic mobility has been almost constantly decreasing.