Skip to main content

When and not if

As Alan Greenspan finally leaves the US Federal Reserve, it is hard not to feel that some fundamental economic realities are changing across the world. The continuing economic imbalances in the US economy are not fully understood, but the scale of military expenditure that "big government Conservatism" implies can not be sustainable over the long term. George W. Bush is driving his country into some serious economic problems- can a US retrenchment be long avoided? And what does that mean for the wider world?

In Britain, the failure of yet another PFI- the new St. Barts hospital project- confirms the strain on public finances that seems more evident every week. As the United Kingdom overtakes Germany in the percentage of economic activity devoted to taxation, an air of gloom is settling over the UK Treasury. The economic forecasts so confidently put forward by Gordon Brown are about to be trashed from all sides. The Labour government will finally have to make some genuinely "tough choices": what expenditure programmes must they cut? British public finances no longer obey any kind of golden rule and unless there is a radical change in policy, then Britain too has run out of room for maneuver.

Worse may be yet to come, according to Houseprice crash.co.uk - click on link above. The persistent house price inflation of the last decade has probably come to an end, and may well now go into reverse. The ratio of house prices:average earnings has now reached an historic high. There are two schools as to what may happen next. The first is that the market has undergone a fundamental shift and will now settle, but that owning a house will not be as universal as it has been over the past thirty years. The pattern of most of the twentieth century included a large rental market, both private and social- council- housing and this more mixed market will now return. The alternative is that the prolonged boom will be followed by a sharp and dramatic bust, as took place in the early 1990s. The chances are probably higher for the second than the first, but in any event the growing insecurity of the housing market should certainly give pause for thought.

Given the various bear signals, it is hard not to conclude that "events" are about to move beyond the ability of even this government to spin them. Even the rumoured return of the much feared Alistair Campbell will avail Labour nothing if the growing pressures in the energy market finally force an economic down-draft upon the spendthrift American economy. Britain too is potentially on the bring of being forced into a government retrenchment that may be as protracted as it would be painful. Yet the policy mix on offer from the Tories is certainly not the radical Liberal approach that could reduce the role and cost of the state. Clearly ,the Liberal Democrats too will have to revisit their whole approach to the economy in the face of a major shift in economic fundamentals. That we should cap the size of the state is not in question, where we should cap it clearly is in question.

More to the point, the very basis of improved global prosperity over the past decade- freer trade- may now come under threat. The growing protectionism in Latin America may yet spread, and should the USA succumb to this false hope of "protection" the consequence could be a return to the beggar thy neighbour policies of the 1930s.

We face major threats- global financial instability, the stalling of the housing market in the UK, the consequences of profligate government expenditure, protectionism. Some may say I am being alarmist, that in fact we can handle these problems. My reply is that we should not underestimate the utter foolishness of our political class- as today's sordid and ludicrous revelations about Mark Oaten underline- I do not see leaders with economic understanding and vision. As that controversial classicist, J. Enoch Powell once said: "History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen."

In the face of a more uncertain future, the temptation is to vote for Menzies Campbell as the new leader of the Liberal Democrats. However, having rejected Simon Hughes, I am more intrigued than ever about Chris Huhne's ideas. Between those two candidates, I now slightly favour the more literate economist- as indeed does "The Economist", I hear from friends.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo