Skip to main content

Taking on more debt does not solve the debt crisis

The usual suspects have been out in force on the subject of the British Chancellor's Autumn statement. The mostly left-wing commentators have been imploring Mr. Osborne to switch to Plan B. "The cuts"- they say- "are too severe, and will damage growth". 


I am almost tempted to say "what cuts?"


In fact, "If only..." because, although the government has talked big on the subject of government spending cuts, the fact is that the deficit remains close to its record high, and every month that passes adds yet further billions onto the national debt, which is already stretched way beyond the normal limits for a AAA credit risk. The coalition has established credibility with the financial markets, and retained its AAA- for the time being- but it is still a question of statements of intent rather than goals that are being achieved.


It is just as well that the UK government has gained a breathing space, because even compared to the peripheral Euro zone countries, the toxic legacy of Labour's debt binge has left the British economy in a very precarious position indeed. In fact, one could almost say that the scale of the problems in the Eurozone have distracted attention from the UK's own miserable debt plight.


The fact is that leverage in general is becoming ever more dangerous- which is why the UK private sector paid down over £ 9 billion of mortgage debt last quarter. Unfortunately, the British government has not been able to do the same thing- but that does not mean that it should stop trying.


The Labour government wasted billions on the public sector, and the bloat that remains is crippling the UK economy. Even now, and for several years to come according to the IFS, public sector jobs are set to pay better than the private sector. That is in addition to the fact that public sector workers are entitled to pension benefits that have had to be abandoned in the Private sector, because they were literally bankrupting the companies that were funding them. If the UK does not change the rules on public sector pensions now, then it will face a future where it will not be able to fund those pension liabilities at all. The strike in Britain yesterday, called to protest against those necessary changes, may or may not have been a damp squib- but the fact is that the government has no choice, and indeed arguably the changes may still not be sufficient to bring the pension funds back to any kind of solvency.


This week came close to seeing a meltdown in the global banking system. The interbank market froze- as it did at the time of the Lehman collapse in 2008. The central banks have been forced to flood the market with extra liquidity, but there is no doubt that there is the very real prospect of both a sovereign default and a banking collapse. The ability even of governments, to place more debt into the market is being severely limited.


That is what the left wing commentators don't get: unless the UK addresses its debt, it may not be able to access the debt markets at all. It is not a question of funding growth through added public spending, it is a question of national survival. The public spending that Labour funded was the creation of non jobs in regulation and control, restricting the ability of entrepreneurs to generate real wealth creation. the cost of that is crushing. Doing more of the same will not solve the crisis- it will inflame it.


So while this government considers how it can find money to invest in critical improvements in infrastructure, the burden of unproductive pensioners and excessive pay and benefits in the public sector must be reduced and this talent must be put to more productive use. It is not enough to create "make work" jobs, they must be jobs that add value and create wealth. 


Tax inspectors don't do that.

Comments

I completely agree with this article. You can't get rid of retrospective debts by accumulating more...

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

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

KamiKwasi brings an end to the illusion of Tory economic competence

After a long time, Politics seems to be getting interesting again, so I thought it might be time to restart my blog. With regard to this weeks mini budget, as with all budgets, there are two aspects: the economic and the political. The economic rationale for this package is questionable at best. The problems of the UK economy are structural. Productivity and investment are weak, infrastructure is under-invested and decaying. Small businesses are going to the wall and despite entrepreneurship being relatively strong in Britain, self-employment is increasingly unattractive. Red tape since Brexit has led to a significant fall in exports and the damage has been disproportionately on small businesses. Literally none of these problems are being addressed by this package. Even if the package were to stimulate some kind of short term consumption-led growth boom, this is unlikely to be sustainable, not least because what is being added on the fiscal side will be need to be offset, to a great de