The Chancellor of the Exchequer is generally pictured as commander of the economy, driving it through a dangerous jungle at the edge of Armageddon, threatened by mortal danger on all sides. Whether he is conceived of as a hugely intelligent and skilful driver, or an ill-informed purveyor of omnishambolic damage, is a matter of political opinion. The fundamental error is in the estimation of his power to control the economy. What makes economies robust is not the wisdom of chancellors, but the industry of people, their creativity, their desire for progress and their need to eat. Their co-operative inputs to the many enterprises, private and public, which make up the economy, are what drives it forward.
At most, the Chancellor’s power extends to steering round relatively gentle corners and having some slight influence over speed in order to achieve some counter to the effects of the terrain it has to cover. More decisive action is almost invariably based on false assumption and riven with unforeseen consequences. The effectiveness of the Chancellor’s limited powers depends on the ability to see dangers far ahead and to make adjustments accordingly. But the economic ideology which drives this coalition government is a particular handicap to achieving such foresight. As Chicago Nobel laureate Professor Robert Lucas, devout Friedmanite and star of neoclassical orthodoxy, told the Queen, the best economic theory can do is predict that such events as the 2007-8 crash are unpredictable. Continue reading The Next Crash and the Greens→
Though celebrations have been a little muted, the fifth anniversary of Lehman’s demise should not be allowed to pass without remark. The imponderables of Armageddon, financial melt-down and economic catastrophe seem to have been avoided for the time being at least. The masses may continue in poverty, with huge numbers unemployed, but the Bob Diamonds are OK, and some valuable lessons have been learned.
The banks should obviously not be allowed to sell sub-prime mortgages or other derivative securities whose risk is deliberately obscured. Government agencies should not be allowed to support the loans for such purchases. Banks should clearly be reduced in size to less than too big to fail and be required to carry sufficient capital to make them safe to carry the risks they incur. They should not be allowed to trade on their own behalf with other people’s money. The fundamental ingredients of financial derivative assets must be clearly stated so their riskiness can be assessed, or their sale made illegal. Financial transactions should be subject at least to a nominal tax to reduce automated ultra-fast transactions, and help rebalance the economy from the derivative to the real. Ratings agencies, auditors and regulators must be legally liable for the reasonable truth of their various statements of approval. Continue reading Lehman Brothers’ Bankruptcy Celebrations→
The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards published its 571 pages and its chairman, Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, hopes ‘the higher standards it advocates will help revive the banking sector and the UK generally’. ‘This is not,’ he assures us, ‘a bank bashing report.’ Indeed so. It is as supportive of banking, the City and its financial activities as such a report could be, while talking the language of reproof and proper correction. Its disapproval of massive bonuses, especially those being paid for failure, is given full voice. But proposed substantive action is limited. The extension of deferred bonus payments with easier “clawback”, seems unlikely to make much difference.
A much repeated complaint in the report, especially of people at the top, is the lack of personal responsibility and accountability. Those responsible for the decisions and behaviour which led to the sector’s failure have continued to be rewarded with massive bonuses and pensions. To address this the report recommends top appointments having to be authorised by the regulator who will identify specific responsibilities. Would that make any difference? Would the regulator have rejected the appointment of Fred Goodwin or Bob Diamond. Or any other likely incompetent? Continue reading Banking Standards Apple Pie→
Almost 5 years after the crash, the UK economy remains in the doldrums. Now even the IMF is critical of the UK’s austerity programme. But the government is not for turning from its basic pursuit of austerity plus miniscule photo opportunity gestures like letting small businesses off their National Insurance contributions for a period. But it isn’t working. Is it conspiracy or cock-up?
Or perhaps it is both. There is an underlying conspiracy to promulgate the theory which explains and justifies decisions which are clearly against the best interests of the mass of the population. The democratically elected leaders then cock things up by swallowing the theory whole, implementing its most outrageously inequitable measures and, aided and abetted by a largely collusive media, offering the formulaic explanations provided by the theory. Continue reading UK Economy: Conspiracy or Cock-up?→
We are experiencing an explosion of inequality to levels not seen since the darkest days of the nineteenth century, inequality, not just of wealth but, as George Monbiot suggested (The Guardian, 2nd April 2013), also of ‘decency, honesty and kindness’. His analysis is that the 99% have the virtues, while the 1% have the vices, and the money. It may seem a bit simplistic, but there’s a whole lot of truth in it.
So why does the largely decent majority put up with it? Well, first of all, the media barons, such as Murdoch and Rothermere are still calling the shots. And the corporates continue to invest billions lobbying to pervert true democracy, driving political momentum from the socially minded left of centre to a predatory finance dominated right. The 1% still rule, nurtured by 13 years of New Labour largely driven by the mindless free market ideology. But there is still hope that common sense will prevail over dogmatic belief and practical experience over blind theory. Monbiot suggests that a spark of that hope lies in the Green Party. Continue reading Hope and the Green Party→
Among all the debate about the vices and virtues of capitalism there is rarely any serious attempt to define its key characteristics. Whatever they are, they appear to work better than the best known alternative that has so far been tried: centrally planned totalitarian communism. Whether good capitalism or bad, compassionate, predatory or even ‘conscious’, all capitalisms appear to depend on the ownership and control of the established legal entity known in the United States as the corporation, or the public limited company elsewhere. That is the corporate form Chandler described as ‘the most powerful institution in the economy’ on which the affluence and growth of the past century and a half has been based.
The corporation was the legal form which was enabled to issue shares to many dispersed individuals and so accrue sufficient funds to make large scale capital projects possible. Initially its legal creation required a royal charter, then an act of parliament and finally, after 1844, a company could be legally established by a relatively simple process of registration. Limited liability followed a decade later. This was the precious means by which industrialisation was enabled. Continue reading Democratic Capitalism→
Globalisation reduces the cost of goods and services as their production migrates to the lowest cost parts of the world. The lower prices are a benefit for everyone and the low cost parts of the world, which are only now beginning to industrialise, gain tremendously in terms of economic growth and employment. So globalisation is a good thing, But there are some downsides. Jobs disappear in the advanced economies as production moves to the developing world. Up to now, the advanced economies have grown, bar a few booms and busts, more or less continuously, for the past 250 years in UK’s case. But the migration of jobs now seems likely in the advanced economies to be permanent and to be bringing the growth phase of their economic development to an end.
Permanent changes like this are difficult to forecast, and even appear difficult to recognise when they have happened. The initial response is to identify the change as a blip. Commentators today are identifying this quarter’s UK GDP data as indicating the end to the ‘double dip recession’. If miniscule GDP growth is recorded two quarters on the trot, commentators will surely be referring to ‘green shoots’. But it is equally likely that the slightly encouraging data this quarter is a blip and from now on, the lack of economic growth will be the steady state in advanced economies, which might more aptly be described as post-industrial. Continue reading The Real Costs of Globalisation→
Ed Balls is talking about Labour’s ‘big strategy’ decisions on taxation and spending. He wants to be seen as ‘ruthless and disciplined’ about ‘every penny’ of public spending. Hence his ‘zero-based budgeting review’, which is really a bit of motherhood flim-flam, totally devoid of specifics, dreamed up for the benefit of credulous voters.
The real problem with the economy is lack of demand. The mass of people don’t have the money, or the confidence, to spend unless they have to. So sales are slow and businesses are similarly reluctant to invest till better times return. But the politicians, including Balls, are locked into their simplistic undergraduate understanding of the economy. That was the situation when FDR made his inaugural call that ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself’. It’s that fear that prevents Balls suggesting anything remotely like a new New Deal. In his fear, he’d rather be seen to be ‘ruthless and disciplined’ considering chopping ‘every penny’ of public spending, rather than proposing selective increases to the public spend to create jobs, financed by some higher rates of tax. Continue reading Labour’s Balls on Taxation and Spending→
Almost 18 months ago Glencore first featured on this blog – Glencore and others are screwing the world – a posting which highlighted the predatory nature of financial monsters like Glencore. The Financial Times had reported Glencore’s ability and willingness to fix commodity prices for their own profit and everyone else’s loss and how they were expected to increase their monopolistic stranglehold in key markets. Glencore was in the news at that time because of its imminent initial public offering of shares to the London Stock Exchange which was expected to value the company at between £60 billion and £73 billion and facilitate its further expansion through mergers and acquisitions. The FT also reported how the world’s largest commodity trader had paid “almost no corporate taxes on its trading business for years in spite of bumper profits.”
The FT’s report described how Glencore had exercised their monopolistic power to raise prices in the Russian wheat market for a quick profit, at the expense of those millions already struggling on the breadline. That was revealing of the sort of business Glencore is, and the sort of business practices it was prepared to embrace in order to make its money. Continue reading The Glencores, Xstratas and Blairs→
When J M Keynes used the term ‘madmen in authority’ he was referring to his contemporary equivalents of David Cameron and George Osborne. At the end of last year, though he talked about it incessantly, it was clear that Cameron had limited understanding of the need to rebalance the economy – see http://www.gordonpearson.co.uk/09/mr-cameron-doesn%e2%80%99t-understand/. The real business of making and distributing things for people to use and consume creates real jobs. But Cameron didn’t seem to understand the difference between that real economy and the speculative, bonus driven financial sector. He said he understood, but then always succoured up to his friends in the City.
His lack of understanding, or his duplicity, seems only surpassed by fellow Bullingdon intellectual and purveyor of the greatest budget shambles in living memory, Chancellor George Osborne.
The financial columns have recently suggested full state ownership of RBS was being discussed by senior ministers and treasury officials. It would cost around £5bn. But Osborne was against it. A rational objection was that it would mean taxpayers taking on full responsibility for the bank’s toxic debts, as opposed to the 82% responsibility they already have. But Osborne’s real reason was his dogmatic focus on cleaning RBS ready for sale back to the private sector, even though that won’t happen any time soon. Only Vince Cable has come out publicly in favour of nationalisation so as to boost lending to industry, especially innovative SMEs, in order to get the real economy moving again. Continue reading Our Madmen in Authority: the Bullingdon intellectuals→
Fighting for Fairness by Remaking the Real Economy 