This website – thank you to the readers and bloggers

 

           I am pleased to report that this website was ranked Number One amongst MP websites in the  Total Politics rankings this month,  Number Four amongst  Conservative websites, and Number 20 overall. That is only possible with your interest and comments.

           This site is entirely written by me and by you, the contributors. I pay for the web service  myself, and so far have in fits of high mindedness declined advertising revenues.

               It is good to know that the wish to get beneath the spin, provide analysis and commentary, offer insights from official documents, statements, votes and executive actions, and to come to independent judgements of what might work best for our country can get this much interest and support. I know some of you would like the site to make more personal attacks  on individuals and companies, but I leave that to other sites and journals with better libel lawyers, or sites  beyond the threat of legal action for other reasons.

Why spending an extra £5 billion is a stupid idea

 

            Last night news broke that some Ministers think the government should kick start the economy with an extra £5 billion of capital spending. The BBC’s Economics Correspondent waded in giving it some credibility, revealing her lack of understanding  of the public spending figures and the economic situation.

             The UK economy is slowing down despite a massive £10 billion a month fiscal stimulus , all borrowed, planned for this year. It is slowing down despite the extra £10.6 billion of public spending the Chancellor put into this year’s spending plans in the March 2011 budget compared to the June 2010 budget. The UK economy is slowing down despite the boost given to capital spending in the March 2011 budget of £5 billion.  Yes, the BBC’s Economics Corespondent seemed unaware that the government has already tried the £5 billion capital boost, and the economy has slowed down markedly  despite it. (Red Book page  93  Public sector gross investment) She seemed unaware that the government upped the spending figures in March, with so little favourable effect.

               Instead of pretending that an extra £5 billion would sudddenly do the job, those wanting this change should ask why all the boosts to spending so far have not carried us to faster growth. They should ask why just £5 billion will make such a big difference, in a £1.5 trillion economy where £5 billion can be a small  error in the figures.

                The truth is this economy is not short of public spending. What the economy needs is a private sector led recovery. That requires different policies towards the banks, as this site has described in recent weeks. This economy is not going anywhere fast with broken banks under a regulatory cosh. It needs some new banks with new capital raised from private markets, to lend to decent prospects and to people who have income and want to buy homes, cars and other items.

                 The private sector needs more confidence, more orders, less tax and a sensible regulatory framework. It does not need higher interest rates, which will come if the government relaxes its pretty loose fiscal policy any more.  If all goes well the government plans to borrow a whopping £485 billion extra over five years. Given slower growth the government has already said it will borrow more than this to allow for the loss of revenue. How much more do these people want the government to borrow? Why would an extra £5 billion make such a difference? At what point do they think the UK would lose the confidence of the markets and face rocketing interest rates like Italy and Spain?

                   An extra £5 billion was tried in March 2011. It didn’t work. It’s time to try something else. It’s time to have some  more private capital raised for some better, more competitive banks.

                   The IMF’s recent study forecasts the Uk borrowing 0.7% of GDP more in 2011, and 1.3% of GDP more next year as a result of slower growth. That’s another £10 billion stimulus followed by almost £20 billion. Their figures show the UK borrowing more than Greece as a percentage of GDP  in 2011  and 2012 combined.

 

A question for Mr Huhne

        I am glad Mr Huhne understands that high and rising energy prices are a serious problem. They make fuel poverty worse, and make it more difficult to attract and retain industry in the UK as our prices are higher than in competitor countries.

     The question Mr Huhne needs to answer is “Should he  put anti global warming policies ahead of tackling high fuel bills, given that such policies may just send the energy using industries elsewhere, to countries where the power is cheaper and more carbon dioxide  intensive?”  Having dearer energy than China and India does not save the planet. It  impedes a UK industrial recovery.

Tax it, borrow it, print it – but carry on spending

 

          Western governments mainly know just one refrain. They say they  need to spend more, so they need increased  revenues. When the economy is doing well they want to spend more, so the public sector participates in the success and modernises to keep up with the private sector. When times are bad for the economy they want to spend more, as a counter cyclical boost, to cushion the downturn, to help people in trouble.

           Most advanced country  governments have done this for many decades post war. They have long since come to the conclusion that their spending aspirations far exceed people’s wish to pay taxes. Though they often say they can do it by taxing the rich more, they know in practice they can only afford the increases in spending if they tax everyone more. Most western governments have in consequence resorted to the idea of borrowing more instead.

              The US, the UK, the latin countries of Europe,and Japan built up large debt mountains in the good times prior to the Credit Crunch. As the self inflicted Crunch hit, they decided to spend even more money on bailing out damaged banks instead of demanding an orderly administration of the worst cases, where  bondholders as well as shareholders would  lose money, and professional counterparties would have been taught an expensive lesson. They then added to this extra borrowing yet more borrowing to provide a fiscal stimulus at a time of recession.

            The result of assuming all these liabilities has been to push some of these countries into a debt crisis, and to leave several others dangerously placed, awaiting the market’s verdict and pleasure.

               Most commentators now say these governments have to curb their appetite for debt. There remains an argument over how quickly and to what extent. In the UK there is even an argument over what is happening, as very few commentators can be bothered to read the figures, or have a vested interest in misrepresenting them.

              So now we are at a crossroads. In Euroland the markets are saying they are not prepared to go on lending at the rates some of the states want. They are also saying they do not trust banks that are  full of dodgy government bonds. Euroland’s immediate response is to demand higher taxes. There are plans for a financial transactions tax. There are demands that Greece, Italy and the rest learn how to collect much more tax from their citizens. There are attempts to close down or tax offshore centres.

              They are also having a row about how much more to borrow. The high borrowers think it would be a great idea for them to be able to borrow Euros in Eurobond form, where Germany and France were standing behind their borrowings. Although Germany says “No” to this, it is happening by the back door. The European central Bank is lending  to weak banks in weak countries, and will presumably raise money to do so on their joint account. The Stabilisation funds also represent the use of the common borrowing account to subsidise loans to the weak countries.

                In the end, if they wish to carry on with their dangerous and damaging experiment, they may overcome German resistance to simply  printing it. The ECB could carry on buying up sovereign bonds in the weaker countries to keep their interest rates down, printing money to do so. The ECB would then have come of age. It would be just like the Fed and the Bank of England. It would have discovered that elysian field, that place where governments can print money to spend. There would be no tax bill, no tricky interest bill, no need to roll over debt.

               Any business faced with the probelms these countries face would get on with task of cutting spending. This never seems to occur to governments. Alternatively they say they are doing it, yet the figures for cash spending keep on going up. They manage to combine clumsy cuts to services, with no progress in reducing the outgoings.

             There is just one small snag. Countries that have tried relying on the printing presses have usually ended up with very rapid inflation, a lack of trust in the currency and government, and collapse of the system. It would be wise not to overdo the printing, or to rely on it as the easy way out.

 

The morality of the bond crisis – should anyone go to prison for that?

 

          As we listen to a new round of banker bashing, with demands for bankers to go to prison, we need to ask who is to blame for the current serious sovereign debt crisis. Should they also be in line for prison?

           At the heart of today’s crisis is  Greek debt. There are dangers that the problems surrounding the Greeks could spread to Italy, Spain and Portugal.

            The crisis is brought on by one simple fact. These countries have borrowed too much.

             Is it the Greek government who are to blame, for borrowing more than they can afford?

             Is it the Greek people, for seeking to stop the Greek government cutting its spending so it can afford it?

            Is it the banks who have been prepared to lend money to Greece on poor figures?

          Is it the bank regulators who have actively encouraged the banks to lend more to sovereigns, as they regard sovereign loans as no risk loans that count as part of the bank’s liquidity?

           Is it the European Central Bank, that has encouraged sovereign borrowing by bond issues, and has bought up sovereign bonds itself to artificially inflate their market price?

          In the case of mortgages that go wrong because the poor borrower can no longer afford them, more people are inclined to blame the bank as lender than the borrower for the default. In the case of sophisticated countries with armies of clever people in their finance departments it is more difficult to blame the banks for the excessive borrowing of the sovereigns, and for their eventual reneging on the debt  if that is what they do.

           I suspect the enthusiasm for putting people in jail for their part in the Credit Crunch will wane as we move decisively into the sovereign debt phase. I do not expect to awake to calls from BBC programmes for leading politicians and government officials to go to jail for taking the system to the edge of bankruptcy by overspending and overborrowing in the state sector. Their morality is lop sided. Putting a banker in prison for a dud mortgage is one thing. Putting a left wing Minister in prison for overspending would be quite another. Arguably the latter has done more damage than the former.

             The Greeks today are protesting loudly against the demand for more public sector cuts as part of the package to lend them more money. As few think they can pay back what they have already borrowed, isn’t borrowing more a case of seeking money with no thought for the lenders?  How moral is a further Greek loan? 

               If a country defaults on its borrowings, how does that differ from theft?

Mark Pritchard reflects the growing Conservative frustration over the EU

 

        Mr Pritchard is right to point out the damage our current membership of the EU does to UK democracy and the economy.

        The high payments the UK has to make into the EU bduget, the large transfers now being required to bail out Euro problems, and the vast burden of EU regulation are all damaging to our economy. The constant intrusion of EU lawmaking into so many decisions of government undermines the democratic accountability of national and local government.

            When is the Coalition government going to do something about it?

Mr Cable doesn't curb high pay in the public sector

 

            It is a strange paradox. Mr Cable dislikes high private sector executive pay, and wishes to get shareholders to curb it. Yet Mr Cable is one of  a select few who decides the pay of RBS executives, a loss making state owned bank. He does nothing to curb that.

Mr Cable doesn’t curb high pay in the public sector

 

            It is a strange paradox. Mr Cable dislikes high private sector executive pay, and wishes to get shareholders to curb it. Yet Mr Cable is one of  a select few who decides the pay of RBS executives, a loss making state owned bank. He does nothing to curb that.

The Lib Dem conference- depressingly negative

 

      It was bad news this morning to wake to the briefing from the Lib Dem conference. We heard of their three priorities – tax the successful more, stand up to “ruthless tories”, and stop people getting high salaries.

       I want to hear policies for growth and recovery, policies to lift people out of low and no incomes, policies to create a nation of owners, policies to skill and enthuse a new generation of people. I want some inspiration and optimism from the government. It doesn’t look as if I will get any of that from the junior  Coalition partners. Jealousy is a powerful political emotion, but hope is a more inspiring one.

The morality of financial disasters

 

           The rogue trader at UBS has allowed another round of banker bashing. Why aren’t more bankers in prison, the BBC and others ask. Wasn’t the granting and packaging up of low grade mortgages a crime? Shouldn’t they all be prosecuted?

           I agree that if a banker steals money or perpetrates a fraud they should go to prison. If someone steals your car from the street you expect the criminal to be punished. If a banker takes your money, saying he will invest it safely, and syphons it off to his own bank account he should have his liberty taken away.

             This much is not in dispute. What should be in dispute is who are the worse villains in the less clear cut cases?  

             Let’s take the case of the dodgy mortgages. These were granted to lenders by banks, then often packaged up and sold to other investors in the market. In due course the mortgage holders reneged on their debts, the investment packages fell in value, and large sums were lost all round the market. Who is to blame?

              Is it the banker who granted the mortgage to someone who failed to pay it back?

             Is it the borrower who should have known better and should not have borrowed more than they could afford?

             Is it clearly the borrower to blame if they lied about their income?

              Is it the regulator who supervised the mortgage bank making the transaction?

             Is it the politicians who urged the banks to lend more to people with low incomes, so they could own homes?

             Is it the banker who took piles of these mortgages and packaged them up, saying that as a portfolio they were a sound investment?

              Is it the Rating Agency who assessed the package of mortgages and  said it was a high class investment?

              Is it the professional investors who bought these packages, believing them to be good?

              Is it the Central banks, who created large amounts of credit allowing the banks and other investment firms to buy up all these investments in the good days?

             Is it the Central banks and banking regulators who then withdrew the easy money and exposed the dangers of these types of investment?

             Many of the people operating in these markets acted in good faith. The original borrower thought he could afford the mortage at outset. The bank thought he would repay. The Rating Agency thought a portfolio would perform just fine, as the loss rate would be under control. The Central banks may genuinely have believed that Chinese competition was ending inflation so more credit was justified.

              Doubtless there were some borrowers who knew they might not be able to afford the mortgage, and took a chance. Some falsified their return to get a mortgage they should not have had. Some bank staff may have had doubts about the suitability of some mortgage applicants, but were pushed by management and bonus targets to lend. Central Banks might have turned a blind eye to excessive credit because they wanted to please the politicians. Some politicians may have realised it would end in tears, but wanted to crank it up before their re-election.

            In these cases it is by no means clear who should go to prison, and why that would make the world a better place.