Because there are some key flaws in the arguments presented here, its worth pointing some of them out. Even if you don’t vote for Corbyn.
Point 1 — This is a pretty big oversimplification — printing money causes inflation, but this isn’t a binary equation, there are degrees of borrowing and degrees of inflation, a balance could be found. Also when govt prints money it effectively borrows from itself, so the question is what will it do with this loan. In 2008/9 it printed money to bail out the banks, most economists and pundits agree that this mitigated the severity of the financial crash rather than causing investors to ‘dump the pound’. It’s theoretically possible to create a forward shift in the economy by printing cash and investing in growth.
Also picking one economist to debunk ‘Corbynomics’ isn’t very convincing as there are many others that back his views. Economics isn’t an exact science tested in a lab; it’s mostly one of competing ideologies and particular readings of historical events.
Finally the notion of a ‘magical policy’ to create instant wealth is another simplification. A govt has economic limits on how much it could possibly print, and then there’s the challenge of directing these funds into the right projects. It’s more similar to a business that takes out a business loan to invest in improved productivity. Not everyone gets it right, and in many developing countries we see govt funds being wasted through corruption.
Point 2 — As far as I have read, the idea is to reclaim part of that £120bil in uncollected taxes, not all of it. Something most could agree as being worthwhile.
Point 5 — This depends on the popularity of Corbyn’s platform (if he is elected to lead labour). If popular, it could significantly impact Tory policy even if they stay in power. Just as ‘new Labour’ had to shift right to win in the 1990s, we could see the Tories having to shift left to win in 2020.
Point 6 — I haven’t seen anything about reopening mines in the Corbyn policy papers I’ve read on his website — seems like a bit of scaremongering on behalf of the author. Corbyn seems to be banging a drum of ‘green industry’ but to be fair he hasn’t clarified what that would be and how it would work. Construction of housing/infrastructure would boost employment but it’s not sustainable in the long run. To boost UK manufacturing we need to have a market (domestic or international) for this production. So this is an area we need more clarify on from Corbyn and his economic gurus.
Point 13 — This argument is based on the assumption that Corbyn winning means Labour losing in 2020. Whereas Labour could lose with or without that happening (as it did with a ‘centre-left’ pitch in the last election). There’s no guarantee that another centre-left candidate or position could win in 2020 and thereby dislodge the Tories (‘Tories in power’ being the ‘negative’ the author refers to).
A Corbynite Labour party competing in 2020 national elections is dependent on a lot of ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’. Firstly, can Corbyn win and retain leadership? Can he get the labour party rank and file to support him and his policy. It’s highly likely he’ll have to tone down some of his policies to unify the party. Taking this all into consideration, what platform will Labour present in 2020? That may depend on the national sentiment towards Corbynite policies up to 2020.
If support wanes then Labour will have to adapt or lose, but in a world of increasing cuts the platform of ‘higher wages, better services and national investment’ may be quite popular. Despite its potential ability to deliver improved living standards.
Conclusion — I think it’s worth pointing out that Tories, Blairites and Corbyn are basing their policy suggestions on credible and well established economic policies and schools of thought. Each group can call on eminent economics to back their views. Which one will work best is debatable. We can look at historic precedent where the more leftwing ( Keynesian view) has worked. The new deal in the USA, the huge spending on military equipment in WW1 and WW2 and in South Korea where the gov created demand for the embryonic versions of mega-companies like LG.
But there are key questions about the Corbyn platform. There is a danger that international businesses and employers might be scared off by what they perceive as a less business-friendly environment. The other challenge will be how Corbyn would fund ‘re-nationalisation’ of various sectors (rail/power) and what negative impacts that would have on the Gov budget and the economy. Also, many economists might agree that monopolies would be the most efficient solution for some particular industries. However, it’s hard to understand why a state-run/owned monopoly could do this more efficiently than a private one. These are all key questions that will need to be clarified if and when Corbyn wins the Labour party leadership, and certainly before any Labour party will be fit to contest a national election.