GEORGE FEIGER

Jul 27, 2022

5 min

Inflation: Simple Causes But a Complicated Cure



 JULY 2022


We face a wave of strikes, intended to restore the purchasing power of wages in face of inflation. But strikes cannot succeed in restoring everyone’s purchasing power. In the near term, inflation’s impact on living standards can be significantly mitigated only by importing more and so increasing our trade deficit, financed by foreign borrowing. Unwillingness to do that means we are likely to prolong the wave of strikes and so suffer a bruising recession created by restrictive monetary policy. This will cause yet more damage to living standards.


However, debt-funded importing of consumption items in order to maintain living standards is poor policy longer-term. It can’t stop the harmful redistribution effects of inflation that are already emerging. Most important, it doesn’t address the longstanding source of our lagging living standards – too little economic growth and economic resilience due to our failure to grow productivity. Without increased productivity, debt-funded consumption repair will cumulate to tomorrow’s fiscal crisis.


Therefore, we face a very difficult policy challenge. We must act to support living standards over the next year or two, mitigate the social problems that inflation is already causing and, simultaneously, divert our priorities (and our continuing borrowing) to foster much improved productivity growth.


Causes



This is a simple story. Today’s inflation demonstrates that we are poorer than we were three years ago. The value of what we, collectively, produce and earn, has shrunk, relative to the cost of the things that we seek to consume. Inflation constricts our consumption options to what we can now afford.


We are poorer for two reasons. First, because we produce and earn less domestically, and second, because the things that we don’t produce but import have become scarcer, forcing us to pay more to get them.


• Brexit caused an immediate and seemingly permanent devaluation of Sterling, raising the costs of everything that we import. It also seemingly permanently reduced our exports to the EU, our largest trading partner. No new trade possibilities are similar in scale, so there is a long-term loss of income. Moreover, increased non-tariff barriers have raised the cost of imports from the EU beyond the exchange rate effect.


• The pandemic has reduced the worldwide supply of all sorts of goods, therefore raising their prices. This is due to supply chain problems, the zero-Covid China lockdown, the reduction in UK output because a significant portion of the population is out with Covid at any time. Crops are left rotting in the fields because there aren’t enough domestic agricultural workers and, of course, no more EU farm workers.


• The war in Ukraine has escalated the costs of energy and food grains. In the future it will propel redirection of domestic resources to the production of war material, which is not edible.


Consequences



Inflation not only makes us, collectively, poorer, it differentially distributes the pain.


• Everyone in the UK could go on strike to try to raise their wages enough to maintain their real consumption. But as the pie has shrunk, that is impossible. The extra money people get will simply chase the same, smaller amount available and the prices of goods and services will rise further. If the ensuing price rises provoke further wage increases, we chase our tails. This is the wage/price spiral that the Bank of England fears.


• Some groups have more wage bargaining power than others. Perhaps the railway unions can indeed hold the country to ransom and regain their purchasing power. But then others, less empowered than railway workers, will become greater losers.


• Inflation causes a flight to real assets – houses, commodities – whose values float up with the price level. Because ownership of real assets is very unequally distributed, the asset-rich minority is likely to come out better than before while the asset-poor majority lose even more. The purchasing power of people living on fixed-return assets such as retirement annuities would be devastated by a wage/price spiral. Similarly, as interest rates rise with the price level (or even faster if the Bank of England has its way), debtors on floating rate loans will be hit hard.


• Different geographic areas have different mixes of people who would be gainers and losers from a wage/price spiral, exacerbating our substantial regional inequalities.


Cure Part 1: Near-Term Mitigation



How is it possible to offset the fall in current consumption which is provoking the wage/price spiral? People can consume more than they earn only by borrowing. The key is how that borrowing is undertaken. Households could borrow from private UK lenders, or the state could sell bonds to UK citizens and give the proceeds to other UK citizens to spend. But if all they can spend it on is the total value of UK output, that pie is shrinking. More money from borrowing would only raise prices, that is, add to inflation.


Total UK consumption can exceed the value of UK output only if the extra is imported. Because the imports are paid for in another currency, borrowing to pay for those imports must be borrowing from foreign sources. The debt (public and private) that the UK owes others must rise by the value of the excess consumption.


However, consuming more today by adding to our overseas debt isn’t a miracle cure.


• Not everything can be imported. Domestic services of all types are provided, well, domestically. GP visits and houses and hotel rooms and haircuts will cost more as a result of wage inflation, no matter the amount of net foreign borrowing. These price increases will continue to provide some impetus to a wage/price spiral and make it more likely that the Bank of England will end up pushing the economy into recession to stop it.


• The problem with debt is that you have to pay it back, and in the meantime, you pay interest on it. More consumption today means surrendering a greater amount of potential consumption in the future. Only if there is strong UK productivity growth will this foreign debt repayment not cause significant future trouble. Sadly, the UK has lagged in productivity growth among advanced economies for many years.


Cure Part 2: A More Productive Economy



The policy most likely to maintain social cohesion in the near term, and greater prosperity in the longer term, is a tricky two-step. We need to borrow to defend most people’s consumption in the next year or two, but then switch the budget to support growth and productivity-enhancing investment. Unless we do this, our debt repayment obligations will grow to unmanageable levels and meanwhile our level of consumption will continue to shrink relative to that of our peers.


Our political system has not been good at tricky two-steps. It can manage short-term stimulus, funded by debt. But for decades the UK has failed to invest sufficiently in physical, technological and human capital to create productivity comparable to our peers. The inflation crisis is a call to action. Not only to mitigate current deterioration in living standards but to build a modern economy that sustains rising living standards into the future.

Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Twin earthquakes in Venezuela raise serious concerns over humanitarian, health and infrastructure impacts featured image

3 min

Twin earthquakes in Venezuela raise serious concerns over humanitarian, health and infrastructure impacts

Dr Komal Raj Aryal, lecturer in crisis and disaster management at Aston Business School, has expressed serious concern following the powerful twin earthquakes that struck northern Venezuela on 24 June 2026. "The back-to-back earthquakes, measuring magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 and occurring within less than a minute of each other at an approximate depth of 22 km, represent an exceptionally severe seismic event," said Dr Aryal, who has more than 26 years of international research experience in earthquakes, landslides, extreme weather events and disaster risk governance. "The combination of two major earthquakes occurring in rapid succession, their relatively shallow depths, and the repeated strong ground shaking is likely to have substantially increased damage to buildings, transport networks and other critical infrastructure. Scientifically, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake releases approximately three times more energy than a magnitude 7.2 event. Experiencing both events within seconds creates an extremely complex emergency response situation." Dr Aryal highlighted particular concern for San Felipe, an important industrial, commercial and transportation centre with a population of more than 300,000 people. Built across hilly terrain, with steep streets and dense urban development, the city could face significant challenges for emergency access, search and rescue operations, evacuation and humanitarian assistance. Around 10% of the city's population is aged 65 or older, making older adults particularly vulnerable during prolonged emergency situations. "If widespread power outages occur while temperatures remain between 32°C and 35°C, communities will face compounded risks including heat stress, disruption to healthcare services, shortages of clean water, communication failures and interruptions to essential public services. These cascading impacts often become as significant as the direct earthquake damage itself." Based on the available seismic information and preliminary footage shared on social media, Dr Aryal noted that it will likely take days or even weeks before authorities fully understand the extent of structural damage across northern Venezuela. "Initial seismic information suggests a rupture along a major fault system parallel to Venezuela's northern coastline, with areas experiencing extremely intense ground shaking. If confirmed, significant cascading impacts may extend well beyond the epicentral area, affecting multiple urban centres, transport corridors and regional supply chains." Dr Aryal also expressed concern about the resilience of Venezuela's healthcare system. "Northern Venezuela contains a large concentration of hospitals and healthcare facilities. At present, it remains unclear how many medical facilities have been affected by the earthquakes. Any disruption to hospitals, combined with existing pressures on healthcare capacity, medicine supplies and emergency logistics, could significantly affect the delivery of healthcare services for both acute injuries and patients with chronic illnesses." He added that damage to airports, major highways, bridges and other transport infrastructure could delay humanitarian assistance, emergency logistics and economic recovery. "The humanitarian consequences of this disaster will depend not only on the severity of the ground shaking, but also on the resilience of critical infrastructure, the effectiveness of emergency coordination, the availability of healthcare services and the country's broader socioeconomic capacity to recover." Dr Aryal further warned that the immediate earthquake sequence is unlikely to mark the end of the crisis. "Strong aftershocks are highly likely following earthquakes of this magnitude. These may continue for months, and some could themselves be damaging. They increase risks to already weakened buildings, complicate search and rescue operations, trigger additional landslides in mountainous areas, and prolong humanitarian needs." He concluded that while casualty figures and the full extent of the damage remain uncertain, the event has the potential to become one of the most significant seismic disasters in the region in recent years, requiring sustained national and international humanitarian support.

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed featured image

4 min

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed

When we talk about clean air, the conversation usually turns to traffic: exhaust fumes, congestion, school runs and the air people breathe on busy streets. That focus is understandable because road transport remains one of the most visible sources of poor air quality in everyday life. But Clean Air Day should also draw attention to a less visible question: why are useful materials still being burned as waste? Clean air is about more than traffic Around the world, huge quantities of leftover straw are still treated as waste to be cleared quickly, with rice straw one of the clearest examples. More than 700 million tonnes of rice straw are produced globally every year, and around 80% is burned. That contributes directly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while also destroying material that could have value. At Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute, researchers are exploring alternatives to open burning of crop residues, including whether materials often treated as waste could instead become useful sources of energy, fuels or bioproducts. This matters because the clean air debate needs to look beyond transport. How we manage waste, land and energy also plays a part, and agricultural residues should not automatically be seen as rubbish to be burned. In many cases, they could be resources with real value. Why burning crop waste matters The World Health Organization describes air pollution as one of the greatest environmental risks to health, estimating that ambient outdoor air pollution caused 4.2 million premature deaths globally in 2019. Much of that risk comes from exposure to fine particulate matter, which is linked to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and cancers. That is particularly relevant when residues are burned in the open, as smoke and fine particles can travel beyond the field where burning takes place, affecting nearby communities and wider air quality. There is a practical issue as well as an environmental one. If burning is the fastest and cheapest way to clear land, it can easily become the default, which is why any cleaner alternative has to work for farmers and communities in practice. It is not enough to tell people to stop burning; they need practical alternatives that make sense economically and locally. Turning waste into cleaner alternatives Biochar and bioenergy are two examples of how waste crop material can be treated differently. Instead of being burned in the open, residues can be converted into useful products or sources of renewable energy. Biochar can also offer practical benefits for farmers when it is produced and applied appropriately. Studies have shown that addition of biochar to the soil can improve its structure, help retain nutrients and, in some cases, reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers, which will lower associated emissions and economic demands. The water-holding capacity of biochar can also support crops during dry periods, potentially reducing irrigation demand in drought-prone seasons. Work connected to rice straw has shown that cleaner alternatives to burning can produce measurable environmental benefits while supporting local economies. Community-scale rice straw bioenergy systems, for example, can avoid 2.7–3.5 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emissions per hectare each year, while creating fuel savings and reducing post-harvest losses for rice farming communities. Research and interviews have shown that farmers and local stakeholders are willing to participate in these transitions when alternatives are designed around their needs and priorities. During community engagement activities, participants consistently highlighted cleaner air as an important benefit, not only for environmental reasons but also because of concerns about the health impacts of smoke and the financial burden of illness. For many households, avoiding respiratory problems and expensive hospital bills was seen as just as important as generating additional income from agricultural residues. That matters because cleaner air is linked to more than one policy area. Transport is important, but so are farming, energy and waste. Research can help identify what works, where the trade-offs are, and how promising ideas can move beyond the lab. It can also support industry, policymakers and local partners to develop alternatives that are practical rather than theoretical. For policymakers, the lesson is that air quality cannot be improved by focusing only on the most visible sources of pollution. Transport matters, but so do homes, industry, farming, waste and energy systems. There is no single answer. Agricultural residues vary, local conditions vary, and technologies need to be assessed carefully, but cleaner air will require better options than burning. Clean Air Day should prompt us to ask why useful materials are still being burned in the first place. If we want cleaner air, we need to reduce what we burn and get smarter about what we waste. This article was written by Dr Samuel Sogbesan and Thea Mae Baltazar from Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute. (Photo by Sandie Peters on Unsplash)

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

View all posts