Deficit

Error message

  • Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6600 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).
  • Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/common.inc).

Growing discontent as the cost of living rise continues to bite

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 27/06/2022 - 12:04am in

Demonstration by workers employed by Mitie on strike at st George's Hospital, Tooting.GMB members employed by Mitie on strike outside St George’s Hospital, Tooting, for better pay and conditions and to be directly employed by the NHS. Photo by Helen O’Connor

“An attitude to life which seeks fulfilment in the single-minded pursuit of wealth – in short, materialism – does not fit into this world, because it contains within itself no limiting principle, while the environment in which it is placed is strictly limited.”

E.F. Schumacher –  Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered

 

Anyone remember when Boris Johnson hid in a fridge to avoid being interviewed by Piers Morgan? It’s getting to be a habit. While the country’s economy reels, and people’s lives are wrecked by growing global instability, rising energy and food prices, and the consequences of 12 years of damaging Tory economic policy, Johnson decided to sneak off to Kiev instead of meeting Tory activists in Doncaster, prior to this week’s by-elections in Tiverton and Honiton, and Wakefield. As a Tory MP suggested, “The PM ought to be making every effort to support and respect the people who hold his future in their hands.” Not for the first time, he fell short of the expectation that Ministers should serve the interests of their citizens and not their own.

The by-election results are a testament to people’s growing disaffection, not just with the Prime Minister, but with the Tory government, which has demonstrated time and time again its priorities in terms of in whose interests they govern. Priorities which have impoverished many and enriched the few, and left the public and social infrastructure unable to respond effectively to the economic threats it has faced and continues to face. Thus, in a predictable flurry of tactical voting, Labour lost its deposit in Tiverton and won Wakefield, and the Lib Dems lost their deposit in Wakefield and won on a huge swing in Tiverton.

As positive as this might be viewed, and regardless of whether Johnson does the decent thing and resigns, the country still faces two more years of Tory rule, with all the economic pain that is likely to bring. Leopards don’t change their spots, unless of course it’s in their interests to do so, as is the case with Rishi Sunak’s reported decision this week to restore the pensions triple lock next year. Clearly a bribe to give their retired voting supporters a reason to put yet another x on the voting slip.

Worse, even if there were an election tomorrow there would be little choice on offer between three political contenders still wedded to serving the City and big business, and the neoliberal ideology that has dominated policy for decades.

We have three political parties whose policies are driven by the household budget narratives of government spending, rather than spending in the context of the real resources that the UK government has at its disposal, and which are the real constraints that need to be managed to avoid inflationary pressures. In the light of that framework, these are spending choices which are political and not monetary in themselves, and which determine who gets the pie. And over the last decade and longer, it is very clear who have been the winners and losers.

In this respect, the household budget narrative of how a government spends continues to frame the debate through headlines and articles which analyse the public accounts, and in doing so, keep the false mantra of public unaffordability in the public eye.

This week, Sky News in its headline suggested that the government had been ‘forced to hand over £7.6bn in record payments on public debt after inflation pushed borrowing costs to some of their highest levels on record’, and the same news outlet also reported that the National Debt had grown in April by £18.6bn. The Telegraph also suggested that it would cut the Chancellor’s ‘headroom’ for further spending or cutting taxes.

Just more of the same old nonsense.

The government has not, in fact, been forced to do anything of the sort. These references represent part of the smoke and mirrors that are intended to deceive the public about the nature of how the government spends. The government as the currency issuer is always able to meet any liabilities in its own unit of account which include maturing bonds. Those bonds do not constitute borrowing in any shape or form, any more than taxing creates the funds allowing governments to spend.

When Michael Gove warns ‘tough times’ are ahead and claims that the pressure of the public finances means that government is unable to provide the level of support to people it would like, it is a whopping lie of the first order.

It is vital, therefore, to bring clarity to the public about how government really spends. It boils down to a few simple facts: The government is the currency issuer and has to spend money into existence before it can collect any tax at all, or issue bonds. Contrary to belief, the issuing of these bonds does not constitute borrowing, rather they form a safe savings mechanism for big corporations which allows the Central Bank to manage its target interest rate. Furthermore, the government, as the currency issuer, can always meet those liabilities and any interest accrued upon maturity.

As for the National Debt, that is quite simply all the money the government has ever spent into existence and didn’t tax back. The money that circulated in the economy. Not something that anyone needs to spend time worrying about. People should instead be concerned about a government using the language of taxation and debt to deny them functioning and quality public services. And which, combined with government market-led policies, have been responsible for the low-wage economy and the growth in food banks and homelessness, while at the same time immorally lining the pockets of large corporations and their rich friends.

Sunak is endlessly given a platform by a compliant media to repeat his messages that government, ‘must take a balanced and responsible approach to support now, while also not burdening future generations’, or that it is, ‘making sure every penny of hard-earned taxpayer money is being spent on our world leading public services.’

On that last point, it is ironic that Sunak thinks that his government has created a world-leading public service sector, when it is clear that over the last 12 years it has done the exact opposite. It has devastated them whilst driving its privatising agenda. The state of our NHS is living proof of that, as a Panorama programme earlier in June demonstrated, as an undercover reporter exposed the scandal of a US-owned company, Operose, which is prioritising profit over patient care. With staffing shortages, rising waiting lists, crumbling NHS infrastructure and a demoralised workforce, we are paying a heavy price for government policies and insufficient public sector funding.

If governments seek to be accountable, that should be related to their policies and achievements, or not as the case may be, not whether they have been fiscally responsible.

As for the claimed burden faced by future generations which this blog has spoken about many times, the only debt that will be owed to those future generations will be the one created by government failure to invest in the country’s infrastructure today, to ensure that one can be as productive as possible tomorrow. Instead, based on our current trajectory, the country faces a bleak future based on using the public accounts as the measure of a country’s economic success or failure.

While the Tories bet on continuing to con the public with their talk of the necessity to be fiscally responsible, a couple of weeks ago Labour, in the same vein, took the Tories to task over its own published record on the public finances which showed that Labour presided over nine budget surpluses compared to the five under the conservatives. The data also indicated that the highest peacetime deficit came under the Tories during the pandemic. The report also said that Labour had ‘failed’ to set out how they would pay for their spending measures and attacked the party for its ‘reckless’ approach to the public finances and the third-highest deficit ever recorded after the second world war and the pandemic.

This is yet more of the nonsense which prevails in political circles and is reported by the mainstream media.

Firstly, whilst Labour chases rebuilding its reputation as being fiscally responsible, it, like the Tories, adheres to the false notion that balanced budgets and surpluses are the golden grail of public accounting. It is unfortunate that Labour and the Conservatives choose to conduct a war based on who supposedly has been the most fiscally disciplined, rather than examining the background to those surpluses and basing their critique on that. Surpluses, just as deficits are neither good nor bad in themselves and simply represent government spending and taxation in relation to the economic circumstances that prevail.

We should reject the implied notion that government surpluses create savings that can be used later to fund public expenditure. As Bill Mitchell explains:

A budget surplus exists only because private income or wealth is reduced.’

It is the context of that reduction that is all-important.

The real consideration should be an examination of why there is a surplus or deficit. What were the economic reasons? The pandemic, the global financial crash and now the global uncertainty arising from rising energy and food costs are three examples of why deficits of both political parties increased, to save an ailing economy facing recession and alleviate the associated human consequences. There was no alternative, unless one preferred economic collapse to ensuring that a country could function during difficult times. The point of contention might be who the beneficiaries of the government spending actually were, and the question was it a fair distribution?

Surpluses equally can arise when government fails to spend adequately, thus pushing the non-government sector into increasing its debt burden, which ultimately has an unavoidable consequence as debt levels become unsustainable as they did during the build-up to the Global Financial Crash.

As Bill Mitchell wrote in 2009 and as we are currently experiencing:

“In terms of fiscal policy, there are only real resource restrictions on its capacity to increase spending and hence output and employment. If there are slack resources available to purchase then a fiscal stimulus has the capacity to ensure they are fully employed. While the size of the impact of the financial crisis may be significant, a fiscal injection can be appropriately scaled to meet the challenge. That is, there is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending.”

What was true then is true today. So, whilst Labour and the Tories fight their battles on the premise of fiscal discipline, the elephant continues to thrash about in the room. It is worth reiterating that the only measure of a government’s economic success is what it actually did to preserve a functioning economy in good times or bad, and the outcomes of those decisions. Not whether they lowered the deficit, balanced the books or recorded a surplus. Our political parties have it all upside down.

Whilst the endless merry-go-round of public indoctrination and deception by politicians and a compliant mainstream media continues, scarcely a day goes by when that dreaded word inflation is not mentioned to keep the troops fearful and in their place as if they were not already suffering enough. Articles in the mainstream media castigate the Bank of England for not acting sooner to curb it with interest rate rises or suggest that it has to go much further yet.

As people struggle to keep their heads above the water as the rises in the cost of living continue to bite, the government once again shows who in the pecking order are its priorities.

This week the Treasury said that there would be no ‘inflation-busting’ pay rises for the public sector and urged private companies to consider similar pay restraint. At the same time, it defended its above-inflation rise for pensioners and its plans to cut limits on director and non-executive pay, as part of a package of business deregulation. On the last point, have we learned no lessons at all?

Whilst Sunak insists that pay rises for workers should be, ‘proportionate and balanced’, to prevent price pressures getting out of control, at the same time he claimed that the planned increase in state pensions was different because high pensioner incomes do not feed into the cost for businesses creating goods and providing services.

As Ben Riley-Smith from the Telegraph pointed out, Downing Street’s arguments about pay and inflation now make little sense. It seems yet again that in a low-wage economy in which working people were already struggling, the government are choosing to throw them under the bus yet again to curb inflation at a time when wages are already falling, and demand is sinking as retail figures showed this week. When costs rise, uncertainty rises with it, and then impacts the high street.

There is absolutely no distinction between income increases via pensions or pay all will add to aggregate demand and the capacity to spend. This is a deliberate choice by the government and smacks not of economic common sense but political bias. Long forgotten are the claps for the people who kept the economy functioning during the pandemic.

These inflationary pressures as Martin Lewis the Money Expert suggested, result from supply-led problems, not demand-led ones, and such interest rate rises will feed through into the cost-of-living pressures already being felt by working people.

And as the economist John T Harvey noted in an article in Forbes:

“… it’s abundantly clear that the lion’s share of what we are facing today is being driven by supply-chain issues […] Gas prices are not going up because people had so much money they wanted to do some more joy riding and oil companies couldn’t keep up.  Rather, as with the OPEC oil embargo in 1973, a geopolitical event has created uncertainty and a decrease in supply.  These are the factors responsible for our inflationary woes. […] Nothing in our current scenario suggests that lowering the level of economic activity […] would be helpful.”

And yet, as the TUC noted in an analysis, while bonuses paid to the bankers, insurance brokers and other financial sector employees have reached a record high, the rest of the country struggles with soaring cost of living pressures that are outstripping pay rises. Wealth inequity is built into our economic system and working people pay the price. The rising discontent is currently feeding through into industrial action or threats of industrial action.

So, what should the government’s strategy be? GIMMS Associate Neil Wilson suggests the following :

  • Interest rates should be going down, not up, because taxing young people trying to set up home and giving that to rich people with money is completely the wrong approach.
  • Instead, we need to understand that taxes are there to stop the private sector from hiring people so the public sector can hire them. If we have inflation, then we are undertaxed for the size of government we have.
  • Therefore we reduce the size of government, or we increase taxes on business so they hire fewer people. Employee NI changes should be shifted to Employer’s NI.
  • The number of people on out-of-work benefits is entirely in the gift of private sector businesses. All they have to do is offer sufficiently attractive wages and conditions. In other words, learn to compete and stop offering substandard jobs. Rather than out-of-work benefits we should provide a guaranteed living wage job for all, then it would be even clearer that the problem is with the quality of the private sector job offers, not the willingness of the people to work.
  • Since the inflation problem is a lack of energy, why are we arguing about money rather than talking about measures to use less energy?

Whilst the temptation is increasingly to focus on domestic issues, we ignore at our peril the global context of the effects of the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine on world economies, not to mention the climate crisis which seems to have taken a back seat, or rather dropped off the agenda.

It is increasingly clear that there will be severe consequences for countries in the global south. Countries that do not enjoy food and energy sovereignty, are loaded with foreign debt, and who have suffered at the hands of the IMF which imposes tough conditions for bailouts, destroying public infrastructure and privatising public assets.

Countries who, on top of this, are also having to deal not only with the shocking rises in the price of food staples like grain and energy, related to the conflict in Ukraine, but also with the costs associated with western manufactured wars and economic exploitation, and human-caused climate warming.

There is not a week that goes by when those consequences are not laid bare. Those of a rotten economic system which favours the global north.

This week the UN warned that only an immediate scaling up of funds and humanitarian relief could save Somalia from famine.

In March and April, a brutal heatwave struck India and Pakistan which killed at least 90 people and led to wheat crop failures, power outages and forest fires.

This month, more than 110 people have died and millions have been stranded as excessive Monsoon rains devastate India and Bangladesh, adding to the damage already caused by unusually heavy rain which lashed north-eastern India and Bangladesh in March.

In Niger, people are on the other hand, praying for rain, as malnourished children die as the global food crisis worsens years of drought, caused by the climate crisis which has led to increasingly unpredictable patterns of rainfall and longer dry seasons.

And in Chile, working people are becoming desperate as a severe drought which is turning a reservoir into a desert has affected copper output, stoked tensions over water use for lithium and farming, as well as fuelling forest fires. Plans are now being drawn up for water rationing.

In the Congo, peat which stores vast amounts of carbon is under threat from climate-induced longer dry seasons, unsustainable farming practices and the possibility of significant oil deposits being exploited close to peatlands, with government already parcelling out blocks of land and seeking potential investors.

These events come as climate talks in Germany between rich and poor countries over funding compensation to deal with climate change caused by the emissions of richer countries, ended in acrimony as the US and EU fail to agree.

As Congo’s Environment Minister pointed out, ‘It’s time we understood that it is in our common interest to conserve [the peatlands]. Because if [the West] doesn’t help support our conservation work, we shall be obliged to use our own natural resources, because we need money simply to live.’

That goes for all countries faced with similar dilemmas, and we are as far away as we have ever been from developing global solutions.

With Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister warning this week that the country is on the point of economic collapse, it exposes the fundamental exploitative and toxic nature of the economic system. A country that has as the economist Fadhel Kaboub tweeted recently, ‘failed to invest in food and energy sovereignty, raced to the bottom chasing low value added export industries, remittances and tourism. All fueled by debt in foreign currency.’

The climate crisis, combined with the toxic economic system which is driving it, is posing an existential threat to humanity. The natural world and its biodiversity is under threat as never before, and yet despite the promises, we are now going backwards.

As Antonio Guterres, the head of the UN, made clear last week, fossil fuel firms ‘have humanity by the throat’, as the industry and its backers pull in record profits as energy prices soar, and governments give the go-ahead for further oil field development or re-opening coal plants as Germany is proposing to do. Suddenly the appetite for addressing the climate emergency has been supplanted by other immediate concerns, rather than the long-term effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels and use up the world’s finite resources to keep a dying economic system alive.

We have choices. They start with unpicking the lies about how the government spends, so the public understands the scam that has been perpetrated over decades by politicians, orthodox economists, and the media.

Change is inevitable. The question is what sort of change do we actually want for our children and what needs to happen to achieve it? We need an urgent challenge to a toxic system. Learning how money works is fundamental to that quest.

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post Growing discontent as the cost of living rise continues to bite appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

True consequences of government policy are far worse than a waste of taxpayers’ money

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 12/06/2022 - 1:06am in

Rishi Sunak holding a £1 coin while making a speechImage by HM Treasury on Flickr. Creative Commons 2.0 licence

“Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.”

Albert Camus, Notebooks 1935-1942

 

The Debt Doomsters are back (did they ever go away?). Rishi Sunak is accused this week of wasting billions of taxpayers’ money servicing government debt. In yet another smoke and mirrors exercise to keep the household budget model of Exchequer Accounting alive and well, Professor Jagjit Chadha of NIESR (The National Institute of Economic and Social Research) claimed in a BBC article that Sunak’s actions had left the country with ‘an enormous bill and heavy continuing exposure to interest rate risk’. While neoliberal think tanks like the NIESR continue to focus their attention on the false model of how the government spends, the actual consequences of years of government policies which are colliding with geopolitical events and the continuing effects of the pandemic on global supply, means that the economic crisis will not be solved any time soon, unless the government chooses to actively work to solve it with an understanding of monetary reality and the real constraints to its spending.

As many thousands of households face further pain, adding to the already existing misery, the cumulative consequences of a decade and more of Conservative policies which have put balanced books and a toxic, market-dominated ideology over public well-being, are plain to see. We are a country in crisis, not because the government failed to get the public finances under control, but because the government has chosen that route, through its spending and other policies.

As the academic Prem Sikka tweeted, responding to a BBC article which reported that people in receipt of tax rebate cheques were queuing to cash them at pawnbrokers because they couldn’t wait for the money:

‘Government measures don’t deal with poverty or corporate profiteering. There is no long-term respite. Cost of living crisis is systemic’.

The consequences are stark. Statistics translate into real people and their lived experience arising out of years of government policies. The exponential growth in food banks across the UK is a telling aspect of that failure which GIMMS reports on regularly, as is the hunger which forces people through their doors. When mothers can’t afford to buy baby milk formula as was reported by ITV News on Friday, or have to skip meals to feed their children, it is indicative of a society in deep trouble as the gulf between the haves and have-nots becomes ever wider.

This is not happenstance, and what is worse is that government ministers don’t recognise their own hand in this unacceptable situation. Last week, when asked to comment on Radio 4’s Today programme about the plight of a mother who was skipping breakfasts and whose son was concerned, the government minister Dominic Raab said, ‘I read that story – it just breaks your heart and melts your heart.’

Faux compassion. His own children will never have to face that realisation.

Raab’s voting record tells, in fact, quite another story and shows that he has consistently voted for reductions, like many of his colleagues, in spending on welfare and against raising welfare benefits in line with prices. So, it was not surprising to learn in the same BBC interview that he ruled out an expansion of free school meals, despite calls from teaching unions and charities to widen it out to all families in receipt of Universal Credit. According to figures published by the Food Foundation, around 1.7 million children are eligible for free school meals, but it is estimated that 2.6 million live in households that miss meals or cannot access adequate nutrition because they can’t afford to. The impact on the health of those families cannot be underestimated, nor on the economy itself.

The ONS noted in its reporting last month that wages were failing to keep up with inflationary pressures. As a result, credit card borrowing is rising at its fastest rate in 17 years, according to the Bank of England, despite its ill-advised interest rate increases. Increases that will do nothing to address the external supply issues which lie at the heart of the current inflation and can only add to the nation’s financial woes. Growing numbers of households are facing rising personal debt to pay bills, put food on the table and keep the lights on. People who are quite simply trying to keep their heads above the water are, however, not only victims of these current inflationary pressures, but also victims of decades of policies which have ensured that the share of the rewards of productivity has gone into ever fewer hands. Impoverishing many and enriching the few. We are now reaping the consequences.

Functioning economies don’t just happen. They are created by governments through their spending and legislative decisions. For too long, the public has been hoodwinked by politicians, and the mainstream media which repeats the mantra, into believing that a healthy economy demands balanced public accounts. It is unaware for the most part that the government, as the currency issuer, has the capacity to spend without tax collection, or indeed that taxation or bond issuance (incorrectly referred to as borrowing) can only happen once the government has spent the money into existence, which it does through its central bank on a daily basis in vast quantities, from paying pensions and benefits, to the salaries of public sector workers, and its contracts with the private sector.

The public is also largely unaware that the real challenge for any government is how it balances the economy, based on the real resources it has at its disposal, and what its political and economic priorities are. What the public hears instead is that the measure of good government is whether it has been fiscally responsible. The message is that deficits are bad, regardless of the economic circumstances. And heaven forbid that a government should incur public debt and create burdens for future generations.

In the UK’s case, the priorities, over a decade, have been less about the welfare of citizens and more about keeping a toxic economic ideology alive, and big business (who dictate the rules) on top, through adherence to this false accounting model. And yet, while public infrastructure decays, public money has been poured into corporate welfare, whether in bank or corporate bailouts, or favourable tax regimes that benefit those same business interests.

Whilst NIESR extolled the virtues of sound finance and berated Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson suggested in a speech in Blackpool after his confidence vote win that the current tax burden was an ‘aberration’, that more state spending was not the answer to every problem, and that instead, we should focus on cutting regulation to unleash growth.

Haven’t we been here before? And look how that ended! The 2008 Global Financial Crash and the terrible loss of life that resulted from the fire at the Grenfell Tower revealed the consequences of allowing the financial sector to be a casino and businesses to do as they please. That is the real cost of deregulation.

Despite Sunak unleashing the power of the public purse, even if one notes that distribution was inequitable, favouring big business over supporting citizens adequately to navigate the current crisis, Margaret Thatcher’s ideas clearly still hold sway in the corridors of Conservative power. Perhaps, one might contend, not because they actually believe it, but because it suits their agenda.

Whether it’s Thatcher’s pronouncement that ‘It is your tax which pays for public spending’, or her insistence that ‘there is no alternative’ to the discredited notion of free markets, Will Hutton’s article in the Guardian last month, which claimed that Sunak is ‘dumping ‘Thatcher’s verities’, is clearly a little premature. As his neighbour in Number 10, playing to his audience in the re-constituted lobbying group Conservative Way Forward, founded by Thatcher and promoting free-market policies, demonstrates. Well, when you’re in a sticky corner you have to get support from somewhere to keep you in Number 10, don’t you?

In the same vein, at the end of last month, it was reported that Johnson had written to civil servants to justify his plans to cut 91,000 jobs, claiming that government must reduce its costs ‘just as many families are doing’. Arguing that since the UK had left the European Union and the threats posed by the pandemic were diminishing, he said that ‘we no longer require the state to have the same colossal presence in people’s lives’ [therefore] ‘we must ensure the cost of government is no greater than absolutely necessary.’

The notion being promoted yet again is that the government spends like the budgets of the families he refers to, and therefore it must show fiscal responsibility and cut its cloth to what is affordable.

The neoliberal narrative of the small state also predominates in this message, along with the story that the function of government is solely to facilitate the needs of big business so they can keep the wheels of the economy turning, through deregulation and keeping state spending to a minimum to reduce the tax burden on the corporate body. According to this mantra, it allows corporations to ‘invest’ their profits in innovative new technologies which, in turn, it is claimed creates employment and facilitates wealth creation, which then trickles down.

The lies they tell.

Never mind that that actually hasn’t occurred as corporate profits and top dog salaries have grown exponentially over decades, while at the same time working people and their families have suffered the consequences of a low-wage economy, based on precarious employment and exploitation. It is not a recent phenomenon and not confined to the UK. Whilst this article is dealing specifically with the UK, we cannot ignore the impact of this toxic economic system on global citizens who have borne the brunt, particularly in the Global South, and who are suffering the fall-out of the current crisis.

As Oxfam reported last month, as food and energy prices rose to their highest level in decades, billionaires operating in those sectors have seen their fortunes rise by $453 billion in the last two years. That combined wealth stands at $12.7 trillion, representing a three-fold increase over the year 2000. According to Oxfam, the fortunes of the richest 20 billionaires are greater than the entire GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Corporations and the excessively wealthy have, over decades, profited from pain, and governments around the world have complied through failure to act. That’s a sick system in operation.

Returning to the UK, never mind either that the public and social infrastructure which includes civil servants, form the backbone of a healthy economy, or that there will be economic consequences at such a critical time to reducing the workforce as people lose jobs and the salaries that would be spent into the economy. People who will in some cases join the already insecure and badly paid employment landscape, the sickening consequence of the government’s hands-off approach and its failure to create a functioning economy that is fair to all, and lines the pockets of its corporate friends instead. For a party that claims to want to grow the economy, it’s going the wrong way about it!

In this light it is both infuriating and disgusting that Johnson, in his Blackpool speech, said that the government intends to ‘look at how we can give our nation of aspiring homeowners better access to low deposit mortgages’ and ‘extend the right to buy’, as if that plan will help people already on the poverty line, struggling to feed their families and pay their energy bills. The man with a plan – not! No change there then.

It is equally shocking, as already mentioned previously, that he raised the ’spectre’ of a 1970’s style ‘wage-price spiral’ if workers, in response to the cost-of-living crisis, demand higher pay. Whilst CEOs continue to rake in vast salaries and bonuses as did the Sainsbury boss who it was reported, saw his pay triple to £3.8m last year, the average Sainsbury employee earns183 times less than their boss. Johnson by recommending pay restraint to working people who have for too long been the victims of government policies which have benefited employers, this surely should be the wakeup call for change? A call for a fairer distribution of the country’s wealth.

The nation has lived through the consequences of over a decade of government austerity policies which have decimated our public and social infrastructure and introduced public sector pay caps, on the lie of unaffordability. This combines with policies that have also promoted a generally low-wage economy and insecure working practices, with the claimed advantage that it supports businesses to be competitive. If Johnson gets his way, he seems to be proposing to follow that same route again.

When it was politically convenient, and Johnson needed the votes of the so-called Red Wall, he promoted his levelling up project promising funding and support. But Boris Johnson’s so-called ‘defining mission’ has so far been little more than a damp squib and has failed to even start dealing with the systemic problems caused by 30 and more years of the adherence to an economic ideology which has bred the pre-existing poverty and inequality that has added to the current economic difficulties.

Now with the growing crisis resulting from the pandemic and the continuing conflict in Ukraine, if the Chancellor chooses to continue to play the household budget game to keep his reputation as a safe pair of fiscal hands, it is probably only a matter of time before any talk about levelling up or investment in the nation’s public infrastructure goes by the wayside, As we know from past experience of Johnson at the Dispatch Box, fancy rhetoric is easy to spout but clearly not so easy to deliver without a clear strategy or foregoing the rhetoric of affordability.

The government can talk as much as it likes about levelling up through local investment, but without addressing the key causes of the failure of local communities to thrive, which include wage rates and employment legislation, both determined by national government, it will continue to fail. Businesses will be reluctant to invest if they have no confidence that that investment will bring a return. When infrastructure is in a state of decay and people’s lives a constant struggle, an economy cannot flourish.

Levelling up can only happen with a government that has the political will to use the power of the public purse and legislative capacity to distribute wealth more fairly and create the public and social infrastructure which underpins a fair and sustainable economy. It can only happen when the social determinants of a nation’s health and environmental sustainability sit at the heart of policy. It cannot be one based on growth for growth’s sake, to keep the profits high, and capitalism on a roll at the expense of people and the health of the planet which provides the means for human existence.

It can’t happen either in a government that still pretends that fiscal discipline comes before human security, health, and welfare, or indeed preservation of the planet. The idea that is promoted by politicians that those things are dependent on a healthy economy and the tax that derives from it is false. Thatcher’s faux model of the public finances is being used to serve the neoliberal agenda and keeps the public in a state of ignorance, fearful and therefore malleable to that agenda. It is time to challenge that economic agenda and the monetary model which drives it.

Let’s not be under any illusion. We are at a crossroads for humanity. We can choose the path of endless wars to fund a bloated arms industry that produces only death and destruction and continue with the harmful economic model which is driving poverty and inequality and making our planet a wasteland.

Or we can fix upon another path which respects the more productive human endeavour to create a fairer and more peaceful existence for all, to ensure that future generations can look back and thank us, not curse us. What we choose today will determine what happens tomorrow. As Albert Einstein noted: “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post True consequences of government policy are far worse than a waste of taxpayers’ money appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Splendour of the Queen’s Speech brings no relief for hungry people

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 15/05/2022 - 5:47am in

Prince Charles sitting alongside the Imperial State Crown in the House of Lords at the State Opening of ParliamentCopyright House of Lords 2022 / Photography by Annabel Moeller. Creative Commons 2.0 license

The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.
Jane Addams, US social reformer and suffragette (1860-1935)

 

How best to describe the state opening of Parliament this week? An anachronism in the 21st Century, bearing no relationship to the reality of people’s lives? Or, as Raphael Behr suggested in a Guardian article, ‘it was a reminder that much of what passes for a British constitution is actually fancy dress’. A King in waiting, dressed up in his military uniform, sporting medals and seated next to his mother’s jewelled crown, delivering a speech not actually written by her at all. You couldn’t make it up.

In terms of the reality of people’s lives, in these difficult and uncertain times, it proved as predicted, to be all show and no substance as the very real hardships being faced by people were scarcely acknowledged. No further solutions were offered to the growing financial insecurity caused by the ongoing fallout from the pandemic, global supply issues and rising inflation, along with the Ukraine war, which are all affecting the global economy with concomitant knock-on effects on individual nations.

The Spring Budget brought forth little relief, and the Queen’s Speech reinforced it. We have to bear the pain now to enjoy jam tomorrow! Michael Gove was adamant in ruling out an emergency budget during a televised interview earlier this week and blamed the current situation on global inflation, as if somehow the government had no tools to alleviate the growing pressures on families across the country.

The cure for this economic mess is, according to Boris Johnson, to ‘revive Britain’s economic growth’, as if that could be achieved by next week. He told parliament on Tuesday that whilst his government would make every effort to help those struggling with rising prices, ‘however great our compassion and ingenuity, we cannot simply spend our way out of this problem, we need to grow out of this problem’.

Aside from the fact that compassion and ingenuity seem to be in very short supply when it comes to the economic strategies and spending policies of Johnson’s government, the focus on repairing the public finances, instead of maintaining sufficient spending (in good times and bad) to keep the wheels of the economy turning, will most likely drive the economy into recession. The signs are already there. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the UK economy contracted by 0.1% in March, after flatlining in February, with retail sales down, production falling, and spending on cars decreasing by more than 15%. The British Retail Consortium, backed up that data in its latest reporting, noting that retail sales had dipped in April, and figures from Barclaycard also showed credit card spending on entertainment and eating out, slowing. The cost-of-living crisis is beginning, predictably, to crush confidence and put the brakes on people’s spending. And whilst Boris Johnson pledges that the government will, ‘do things in the short term to ease the squeeze on living standards’, (no sign as yet), they will likely go the same way as all the rest, into the wastepaper basket of empty promises. It must be getting pretty full by now.

It beggars belief that The Telegraph published an article this week suggesting that, according to top economists, people should save less and borrow more to save the economy and prevent a recession. Martin Beck, who is the chief economic advisor at the EY Item club claimed that it was, ‘incumbent on households using their strong financial position to keep spending’, and that ‘the pandemic has left households very well prepared for this period of turmoil because they were able to save more and pay down their debts.’

Where do they find the economists who write this drivel? Aside from the fact that it is only government that can enact the spending policies able to stabilise the economy, the truth of the matter is that not everyone was in the fortunate situation of being able to save and pay down debt during lockdown, and in times of economic uncertainty, whether you have the money or not, spending, or borrowing (unless they are driven to the latter) is the last thing that is on people’s minds. Furthermore, an analysis of Bank of England data by the Debt Justice, revealed that the number of UK households struggling with high levels of debt had increased by a third in 2021, even before the rise in energy prices and the removal of the £20 uplift in universal credit payments. And indeed, as mentioned above we are seeing the signs that people are retrenching in the face of that uncertainty. Lack of confidence begets a reluctance to spend.

Furthermore, the mantra of growth, as promoted by Johnson as the route out of this impasse is based presumably on the promotion of the false logic that a healthy economy drives tax revenue and gives government fiscal space to spend on public and social infrastructure. Just more of the same garbage churned out daily by those who know exactly how government really spends, but use the myths of scarcity to serve a purpose and deliver their ideologically-driven narratives. A political choice at the expense of the health of the economy and those who underpin its success – working people.

A healthy economy doesn’t depend on government tax revenues or borrowing capacity, it depends on a government having the political will and the real resources to deliver it.

A healthy economy also depends on the public and social infrastructure being in place, FIRST, to support the people and the businesses who rely on it. That is the job of government and represents the vital components of a functioning economy, and is certainly not dependent on monetary affordability.

It also fails to acknowledge that in the light of the climate crisis, Johnson’s focus on growth per se, without a clear plan or a strategy to deliver a sustainable and fairer, more just society, will just keep the capitalist juggernaut hurtling towards its destruction. And in this respect, we don’t seem to be making much progress in addressing this emergency. COP 26 is but a distant memory, and growth at any cost seemingly the name of the game.

At the same time as Black Rock warned this week that it would not support shareholder resolutions on climate change this year because they were ‘not consistent with their clients’ long term financial interests,’ a new forecast by scientists led by the World Meteorological Association, found that the probability of one of the next five years temporarily exceeding the 1.5 global heating limit was now 50% up, from 20% in 2021.

As the climate crisis warnings become ever more insistent and visible in our daily lives, banks continue to fund investment in fossil fuels and governments allow them to, without censure. The mission to save humanity from planetary degradation is on the rocks, as governments put fighting wars and growth as a top priority, trumping a future for our children.

It is distressing that the idea that government spends like our own household budgets has tainted any public discussion about the way forward, whether it is dealing with the fall-out from the pandemic, the effects of poverty and inequality on economies particularly, but not confined to the Global South, and the affordability of addressing the climate crisis. The tools are there through an understanding of monetary reality to deliver a healthy economy within the context of available resources, which we emphasise again are the real constraints to government spending.

However, the effects of government austerity policies which have dominated the economic narrative for over a decade, and also led to the idea that cuts to the public sector were necessary to get the public finances back into order, have not only created an increasing burden on the working population and their families, but also have driven the process of stripping out the last vestiges of our publicly paid for and delivered public services, on the lie of its unaffordability. The price we are paying today is unacceptable

It fits very nicely with the neoliberal ideology which has prevailed for decades; that the state’s role should be minimal, that it exists solely as a cash cow for the private sector, that the charity and voluntary sector should step into the government’s shoes for the provision of services that are not profitable, and that the individual should be promoted over the now dying concept of collective action.

At the same time, that same government (and others before it) have dedicated themselves to serving their own interests and those of their wealthy and corporate supporters, as well as pouring public money into private profit, from arms dealers to healthcare. And there it is, the vital clue, that money is not a scarce commodity. Public money for the corporate beggars leaching on the state while the public sector begs for adequate funding.

The consequences of this long-standing toxic ideology are before us. The growth of a low wage economy, in hunger, food banks and homelessness, and the widening gap in wealth distribution, are just a few of its damaging manifestations, all the result of government choices.

The Food Foundation released data this week that shows that in the last three months there has been a rapid jump in the proportion of households cutting back on food, or missing meals altogether. It noted that in April, 7.3 million adults live in households that said they had gone without food or could not physically get it in the past month. That compared, it said, with 4.7 million in January. There had also been a sharp increase in the proportion of households with children experiencing food insecurity in the past month, at 17.2%, up from 12.1% in January 2020. That represents, the Food Foundation noted, a total of 2.6 million children under 18 who live in households that do not have access to a healthy and affordable diet, putting them at high risk of suffering from diet-related diseases. It has called on the Government to take urgent action to prevent further escalation of this crisis, to include increasing benefit levels in line with inflation, expanding access to Free School Meals and the Healthy Start Programme.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, following its analysis for Channel 4 last year, reported this week that more than 250,000 households will ‘slide into destitution’ next year, which will bring the total number in extreme poverty to around 1.2 million. The think tank, echoing the Food Foundation, said that without government action, more than 1.5 million will face a rise in food and energy bills, that will outstrip their disposable income and force them to use savings (if they have any) or borrow to get through.

Professor Adrian Pabst, who is NIESR’s deputy director for Public Policy, commenting in November last year said: ‘Britain’s broken economic model shows no signs of turning into a high-wage, high-productivity, high-growth economy anytime soon.’ Regardless of Johnson’s promises.

While government fails to deliver, people will continue to struggle. It is distressing to note that while people’s lives are being ripped apart by a government that has no solutions but book balancing, Tories remain in their ivory towers sitting in judgement on those who cannot feed themselves or their families adequately. Not because they lack cooking or budgeting skills as a Tory MP suggested this week, but because they don’t have enough money. First up, we had the Ashfield MP, Lee Anderson, speaking in the Commons debate on the government’s Queen’s Speech, claiming that there wasn’t a widespread need for food banks, and that hunger was rather down to the fact that too many people ‘cannot cook’ and ‘cannot budget’. Tell that to the Trussell Trust and the myriad food banks serving their local communities. It was an insult to those who are forced to use food banks through no fault of their own, and to suggest that one can cook a wholesome meal for 30p a day by cooking from scratch. Perhaps he should be issued with a challenge to do so. It shows completely how out of touch some MPs are with the lives of their constituents.

Secondly, the Metro reported this week on Dartford Conservatives tucking into a buffet of cakes and sandwiches, after cutting the ribbon for the opening of a new food bank, as if that were something to celebrate. Whilst, in the same church building, desperate families have to queue there for food.

In 2017, Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg called the support given to food banks ‘rather uplifting’ and ‘shows what a compassionate country we are’. Of course, it is human to feel compassion for others who have fallen on hard times and want to help, but the existence of food banks, whilst not a new phenomenon, is a stain on a government which has the fiscal tools to ensure that people have the dignity of well-paid, secure work, either in the public sector, or in the form of a publicly run Job Guarantee scheme, to support those caught in the inevitable ups and downs of the economic cycle, and extraordinary events such as the pandemic or war, from which now stems an increasing tide of hunger and poverty, to add to that already perpetrated by prior lack of adequate government action.

Nicholas Hair, a Labour council candidate, commenting on the event said,

‘Food banks are not heart-warming. They are evidence of a failure of government and of a society to seek social justice’.

That gets to the heart of the matter. A government which knows it has the tools, as the currency issuer, to support people through this difficult time, but has chosen not to. A government that fails to spend sufficiently to support an economy and its citizens, transfers the burden to those who can least afford it. The human cost of this failure to act now will be devastating for working people and their families.

The solution, however, is not as the Chairman of Tesco has suggested this week, to impose a windfall tax on energy companies, as if collecting that money would give the Treasury the funds to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis. And, in the same vein, neither will a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas operators, ‘rake in’ money for the Treasury to soften the pain of rising energy bills as predictable analysis by the Labour party continues to suggest. Just more of the managed illusions politicians rely on to keep the public on side from the valid point of view of fairness. The government, as the currency issuer, could create that funding tomorrow by authorising its central bank to do so. And it neither needs to tax nor borrow to keep the economy functioning. Again, its only constraint is the availability of real but finite resources, and how they are managed to deliver government priorities and avoid inflationary pressures.

However, on the other hand, a big yes to taxing the energy companies whose profits have gone through the roof, along with executive pay, and whose business is polluting and contributing to the climate crisis. Tax them to force change and drive sustainable energy solutions, or tax them out of existence if they fail to comply, but not because it provides funds for the Treasury to spend. It doesn’t.

On one further point, one could not disagree with the Tesco Chairman’s view that Rishi Sunak should not have raised National Insurance. He gets it! He understands that removing even more of people’s income leaves less for essentials. His remarks may have been driven by clear concern for those who are rationing the amount of food they eat, but also, no doubt, by the effects of that on the business as less money circulates through the economy and into company profits.

On that basis, it also makes a nonsense of Boris Johnson’s announcement this week that the government plans to cut 91,000 civil service jobs, claiming that it will free up cash to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. Or as Larry Elliott suggested in an article this week that ‘harder choices will need to be made, and at a time when ageing populations are intensifying pressures for higher spending. What nonsense!

Aside from the fact that government, as the currency issuer, doesn’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and paints a picture of scarce monetary resources which have to be divvied out, it demonstrates blinding economic illiteracy. Again, involuntary unemployment is not only harmful to those affected by it, but under current benefit arrangements, people would be left with less money to spend which, ultimately, would also have a knock-on effect on businesses such as Tesco, in an economy already facing serious problems.

If the government can create funds for its wars, or to bail out banks with no problem, then the question we must ask urgently is why can’t it do the same to help people, and why can’t it invest in the vital public and social infrastructure it has destroyed in the last decade?

When a Treasury spokesman claims, as was reported in The Telegraph this week, that since ‘public debt is at its highest levels and rising inflation is pushing up debt interest costs, the government has to manage the public finances sustainably to avoid saddling future generations with further debt’, there is only one response. It is a damaging lie.

And when Steven Millard, an economist at the NIESR think tank commented that, ‘The Chancellor had the chance to help poorer households, to do something about this. But he chose not to. He chose instead to pay for the Covid Assistance, the added fiscal support, by running down the deficit’, he has understood the potentially catastrophic consequences of that political decision, even if he chooses, like many in his profession, to ignore the monetary reality of how government spends.

The crossroad is before us, there is an alternative. But the question is, which direction will we take?

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post Splendour of the Queen’s Speech brings no relief for hungry people appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Cabinet brainstorms quick fixes for the cost-of-living crisis to avoid the real solution

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/05/2022 - 3:51am in

“When people live in a fair, caring society, where everyone has equal access to social goods, they don’t have to spend their time worrying about how to cover their basic needs day to day – they can enjoy the art of living. And instead of feeling they are in constant competition with their neighbours, they can build bonds of social solidarity.”

Jason Hickel – Less is More.

Boris Johnson holds a meeting of UK Cabinet minstersPPicture by Simon Dawson – No 10 Downing Street on Flickr. Creative Commons 2.0 license

According to the Telegraph this week, the Treasury has ‘raked in more tax than ever before’, thus putting the UK, it says, on course to have the ‘highest tax burden since the aftermath of the second world war’. The Chancellor, still counting his beans, was not in the slightest bit apologetic, making clear his assertion that he had no other option but to get the public finances back on track after the vast amount of public money that had been spent during the pandemic. Keeping the £12,570 personal allowance for income tax at its current level would, the author of the Telegraph article indicated, generate an extra £20bn for the Treasury over the next five years, thus reinforcing, yet again, the plainly wrong idea that government relies on tax to spend, or balance the public accounts. A government spokesperson called on for comment, said, wiping a tear away, that it had been forced to make ‘tough decisions’, but not to worry, in 2024 we can expect a tax cut bonanza just before the next election.

The Guardian took another tack, not taxes, but borrowing. In an article by Larry Elliott entitled, ‘UK government borrowing halves but is still close to record high’, he quotes figures from the ONS which reported that the gap between the state’s revenues and its spending was down on the previous year, but that despite the improvement over the year, the total deficit for 2021/22 was more than £20bn higher than forecast by the OBR. All as if borrowing figures were a sound measure of the government’s management of the economy. The Chancellor, trying yet again to sell his agenda of fiscal discipline, was quoted by Elliott, reiterating yet again, that ‘Public debt is at the highest levels since the 1960s and rising inflation is pushing up our debt interest costs, which means we must manage public finances sustainably to avoid saddling future generations with further debt’.

They are all at it! Whether it’s former or current Chancellors of the Exchequer, journalists or orthodox economists, they all have one thing in common: their addiction to the false narrative of household budgets. The idea that governments are limited in their spending policies by how much tax they collect or what they can borrow. The false corollary of all that, is that without careful management of the public accounts, either we face the prospect of the UK going bankrupt, as former Chancellor George Osborne suggested to the public, or future generations will pay the price in higher taxes. All nonsense, of course, but it keeps the public in their place, meaning acceptance without question, that the government has limited fiscal capacity, and the message that government has no option but to impose belt-tightening policies, completely ignoring the fact that a government deficit represents a private sector surplus, in layman’s terms, the money in our pockets. Taxing away more doesn’t give the government more to spend, or to pay down public debt as is implied, and it certainly doesn’t help an economy to navigate difficult times.

We are now witnessing in the most distressing way, the terrible consequences of those narratives which are having a direct effect on the economy, or more precisely, the people who do the work to keep it functioning. Not just the effects of the last 2 years on people’s lives but the ongoing consequences of decades of successive government spending policies. Policies which have ranked fiscal discipline over economic health and public well-being, seen wealth distribution skewed to favour ever fewer people and overseen the selling off or privatisation of key public assets with vast amounts of public money syphoned off for private profit, along with the underfunding of vital publicly run and paid for public infrastructure which has left it in a state of ongoing decay. We have paid a heavy price as a nation for the economic ideology which prevails and dictates policy and spending.

From every corner, the warning signals have been ringing loudly. Last month, Martin Lewis, the Money Saving Expert, said that he was running out of tools to help people manage the cost-of-living crisis. He said that ‘it’s not something money management can fix, it’s not something that for those on the lowest incomes telling them to cut their belts will work, we need political intervention.’

Phil Andrew, the CEO of the StepChange Debt Charity, echoing Lewis, said that their advisers had been taking increasing numbers of calls from people who fear they won’t be able to keep up their debt repayments. With eleven million households facing Covid-related debt, and four million using credit to pay for essentials, he was clear:

‘For these households, rises in energy bills and the increasing cost of essentials are not things that make the difference between being able to afford luxuries or not. They are the things that genuinely make the difference between heating and eating.’

The Trussell Trust, which runs more than half of UK food banks, says it is witnessing an accelerating crisis across the UK as more and more people are unable to afford the absolute essentials necessary to eat, stay warm and dry, and clean. Figures released this week show that the Trust’s network provided more than 2.1 million parcels to people facing financial hardship from 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022, which represents a 14% increase over 2019/20 – before the pandemic. And more than 830,000 parcels were provided for children, which represents a 15% increase from 2019/20, when 720,000 were provided. The Trust, again echoing Martin Lewis, said that there is still time for politicians to turn this situation around, saying that, governments at all levels must use their powers and take urgent action now to strengthen our social security system so it keeps up with the true cost of living and helps prevent hundreds of thousands more families being forced through the doors of food banks.’

These figures are a shocking indictment of a government that does have the fiscal tools to put in place solutions to mitigate the economic shock of Covid (although imperfect, already demonstrated), the effects of the war in Ukraine and last but not least to address a climate crisis which threatens humanity, but which seems to have been put on the back burner even as the planet’s life support systems continue to degrade and the social injustices intensify globally.

Our government has the legislative and fiscal tools, should it choose to use them, not only to mitigate this economic crisis in the short term, but also to challenge the market-driven ideology of decades. An ideology which has led to an increasing divide between the rich and the poor, with an ever-increasing share of wealth going into fewer hands, as wages have stagnated. A pernicious ideology that has created increasing reliance on an unfair social security system which punishes people rather than supporting them, whilst it has made the concept of real full employment a dirty word and allowed the corporate sector to get away with murder by paying low wages and setting working people against each other in the dash for a job and a modicum of security.

We may, as the Trussell Trust says, need a fairer social security system for those who cannot work, or who are caught in economic straits not of their making, but we also need a government with the political will to implement a Job Guarantee, not just to provide the vital cyclical economic automatic stabiliser at such times as these, but also to reverse the unfair advantage capital has had for decades over labour, which has been responsible for wages being driven down in a fight for competitive supremacy with all that entails in human deprivation.

However, apparently, the government is right out of tools, out of ideas, out of everything except perhaps its propaganda machine, which is working just fine. This week’s Cabinet ‘blue sky thinking’ exercise left many scratching their heads as Boris Johnson was reported as asking for proposals for tackling the cost-of-living crisis without actually spending public money. Ministers have been ordered to find new ‘non-fiscal’ solutions. Grant Shapps suggested making the MOT test biennial instead of annual. Is that a joke? If so, it’s in the worst possible taste, ignoring as it does the very real effects of higher energy and food costs on families across the country. Their problems won’t be solved by such crass intervention. And Johnson is said to have revived the Liz Truss proposal to cut childcare costs by lowering England’s legal limit on adult supervision for nursery children, even though such a move could well endanger the safety of these children. As we said – right out of ideas, well at least sensible ones like using fiscal policy to address the current crisis and indeed future ones. Meaning, spending newly created money as only a currency-issuing government can do.

Even Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation think tank, which has its roots in orthodox economic thinking, commented that he thought the government had ‘lost the plot’, if it believed that such ideas would improve people’s lives substantially.

It is quite shocking and disingenuous of a Chancellor who can afford a £600 pair of trainers, has an extensive property portfolio and will think nothing of spending £13,000 a year on heating a swimming pool, to tell listeners on Mumsnet this week, that it would be ‘silly’ at this moment in time to give poor families any further help with rising bills, when people are already feeling the pinch from record rises in energy price and steep increases in the cost of food and essentials. Sunak’s Spring Statement and previous budgets have been a kick in the teeth for ordinary people who have paid the price in living standards and rising private debt, caused by inadequate spending, not just by Sunak but also by previous Chancellors wedded to economic orthodoxy, and the lie that government spending is just like our own household budgets. People who have already been subjected to government policies which have driven growing poverty and inequality and decimated the public and social infrastructure over the decades which preceded the current emergency. They need help now, not later, when things are likely to be infinitely worse.

The Chancellor has at his disposal the fiscal tools he needs to address the current cost-of-living crisis and create a fairer and more sustainable society. But while he adheres to his fiscal discipline message that puts the household budget narrative of tax and spend, paying down debt, reducing public deficits or the objective of achieving balanced budgets or surpluses at the top of his agenda, regardless of the economic conditions that prevail, the lives of ordinary people can only get worse, and recession will be just over the hill. We are not all in this together under this regime.

There is an alternative. It’s just that we don’t have a government or other political parties willing to challenge the economic orthodoxy which drives spending and legislative decisions. The system has been corrupted to serve global corporations, whilst politicians have been bought, as a result, by benefiting through the revolving door. At the same time, the media plays out the narrative like a broken record, to keep the illusions going that governments are powerless to intervene when economic instability threatens, hamstrung as they are by scarce monetary resources, when the reverse is actually true.

What hinders government is not scarcity of money, but the recognition that it must align its spending to the available resources and the productive capacity of the nation, and make the political decisions about who gets the pie based on that. That is the real balancing act and the real starting point for a true understanding of what governments can do, with the political will, to create the sort of society which benefits everyone, by serving public purpose instead of corporate greed.

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post Cabinet brainstorms quick fixes for the cost-of-living crisis to avoid the real solution appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Very Fast Sushi Train Will Deliver Salmon Roll From Melbourne To Sydney In Under Three Hours

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 31/03/2022 - 7:45am in

Train

The government has commissioned a feasibility study to look into the construction of a Very Fast Sushi Train down the eastern seaboard, raising hopes that sushi aficionados in Brisbane will be able to sample a frilled scallop nigiri that has been prepared less than five hours earlier in a Melbourne kitchen.

“A whole new line would have to be constructed at a cost of $15 billion as sushi trains in Victoria run on a different gauge to those in New South Wales,” said chief engineer Brenda Hosomaki. “The biggest technological challenge is figuring out how to stop centripetal forces from wrenching the teriyaki chicken off the top of those little oblongs of sticky rice when the train is taking a curve at over 450 kilometers per hour.”

A hi tech form of seaweed inlaid with fibres of a special edible Kevlar like that used on France’s Sushi Train a Grande Vitesse (STGV) will be used to keep the spicy mayo and tuna ships in one piece.

But not everybody is enthusiastic about the project. Wagga Wagga farmer Trevor Gumboot is sceptical that the train will ever become a reality.

“They promise us a Very Fast Sushi Train at every election but everyone knows this is just roast pork aburi barrelling,” said the disgruntled grazier. “The distances in Australia are simply too great to make it economically sustainable. It’s all good in Japan where it’s only fifteen minutes from Tokyo to Osaka, but no-one wants to eat a prawn that’s been sitting in 400C for five hours in the Aussie sun. I’ve seen a study that shows up to 70% of the product will be eaten by cockatoos before it reaches Albury.”

Consulting firm Deloites estimates that a standard selection on a little round plate with the yellow coloured rim will cost a whopping $128 without any form of public subsidy. Chef’s special black plates will cost $500 each.

Peter Green
http://www.twitter.com/Greeny_Peter

Mark Williamson

@MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.

We’re also on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunoz

The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:

https://bit.ly/2y8DH68

Out-of-touch Chancellor’s Spring Statement fails to help those most in need

“Once we allow ourselves to be disobedient to the test of an accountant’s profit, we have begun to change our civilisation.”
John Maynard Keynes  

This week, amidst continuing global economic uncertainty caused by the ongoing pandemic and the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, delivered his Spring Budget. Unsurprisingly, it did little to help the very poorest of households, as the Resolution Foundation reported in its analysis that followed:

“Taking into account the measures announced by the Chancellor, the typical working-age household faces an income fall of 4 per cent, or £1,100, in 2022-23. But the greatest falls will be felt by the poorest quarter of households who are set to see their incomes fall by 6 per cent. This will see a further 1.3 million people fall into absolute poverty next year, including 500,000 children – the first time Britain has seen such a rise in poverty outside of recessions.

 

Incomes are on course to be lower at the next election (2024-25) than they were at the last (2019-20), with typical non-pensioner income projected to be 2 per cent lower. Such an outcome would make this the worst parliament on record for living standards growth.

 

The Chancellor pre-announced a 1p cut in the basic rate of Income Tax for April 2024, saving an average earner £243 a year. But the gains of this and the lasting impact of a higher National Insurance threshold are wiped out by previously announced tax rises.  In 2024-25, when the income tax cut comes into effect, 27 million out of the 31 million people in work will pay more Income Tax and NI as a result of personal tax changes announced by Rishi Sunak.”

Chancellor Rishi Sunak filling a red car with petrol at a petrol stationImage by HM Treasury on Flickr. Creative Commons 2.0 license.

While the Chancellor continues to count the tax beans and make his calculations, those who have already suffered the consequences of the last 12 years of Conservative policies will now be expected to take further pain in the form of a resurrection of harmful austerity dressed up in the concept of possible ‘jam tomorrow’. Cynically speaking, just before the next election.

In the light of a sustained round of higher government spending and the myth that we have borrowed heavily to sustain an economy hit by a global pandemic (even if much of that went into corporate pockets), some economically uneducated politicians are now appealing to the nation yet again to sacrifice their well-being on the altar of balanced budgets. We should be willing victims, according to this false logic. Despite the huge spending over the past two years, the household budget myths were never far away from the public gaze as the media pounded their messages about how there would be a price to pay, eventually.

At the same time as the Resolution Foundation lays it on the line as to the significance of the Chancellor’s budget, which yet again divides rich and poor, it then goes on to reinforce the myths about how the UK government spends. Tax receipts, it said, had come in much stronger in 2021/22 than expected, which would give the Chancellor ‘headroom against his fiscal rules’. The Independent claimed however that Sunak was keeping some of that tax bonanza back for a rainy day or to cover his planned tax cut in 2024. Whilst the Foundation’s analysis is stark on the consequences of this week’s budget, it is clearly still in the dark ages when it comes to describing how currency-issuing governments spend, as are so many think tanks and organisations on both the left and the right, not to mention a myopic media.

Charles Dicken’s character Micawber has been resurrected (if he ever went away) by a Chancellor who, after an astonishing fiscal response to the pandemic, is now re-donning Thatcher’s mantle, reinforcing the lie that taxes fund spending, or that government needs to borrow to fund itself over and above its revenue.

The suggestion by Torsten Bell at the Resolution Foundation, that these unexpected tax receipts would allow the Chancellor to consolidate the Treasury’s fiscal position and deliver his promises is just more shoring up of a myth that governments spend like our own households. And a bit of a joke because by any standards what the Chancellor, with his great wealth and extensive property portfolio, has done, is punish those who can least afford it and who do have to live within their financial means or face the prospect of debt because they are currency users, not currency issuers. The rising use of food banks and increasing homelessness can only get worse as his budget decisions begin to bite in April and our public services will continue to deteriorate without adequate funding.

Holding forth from his ivory tower, Sunak has not an ounce of understanding about the impact of government spending policies on the lives of working people, not to mention the economy. His decisions are directed by a desire to show himself fiscally prudent, not by public health and economic security.

When Rishi Sunak says, as he did earlier this week, that ‘we can’t help everyone because it’s too expensive’ or proposes an efficiency drive to cut £5.5bn of claimed government waste with a view to those savings being used to fund vital public services, it is quite simply a distortion of the facts to serve a political agenda.

Whether it is the Chancellor reciting the usual mantra about it being ‘vital that every single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash is […] spent well,’ or the Shadow Chancellor and other uninformed left-wing politicians suggesting that they would fund public services via a windfall tax on energy companies, the public is being led by the nose in its ignorance of how government spends. An ignorance perpetuated by the daily narratives in both left- and right-wing quarters and by a compliant media singing from the same hymnbook. The economic orthodoxy rules the roost. And yet increasingly we are seeing the true cost of such narratives. They are not financial, they are the threats to human life, biodiversity, and a functioning planet.

Given the challenges we face from an increasingly forgotten climate crisis (and incidentally scarcely mentioned in the Spring budget), the ongoing exploitation of the global south, which has bled countries dry to sustain the lifestyle of the west and which is coupled with rising poverty and inequality affecting citizens across the world, it is time to challenge these myths which have served a political agenda and a toxic ideology. Keeping the myths alive for the purposes of social control and the profits rolling into private pockets with government serving its corporate masters.

Nothing is too expensive in monetary terms; government doesn’t have a finite pot of money with which to provide public and social infrastructure and neither does it have to doff its cap to the wealthy or large corporations to provide it. Contrary to the usual household budget narrative, when the government spends, it does so based on a political agenda, not the state of the public coffers. It just doesn’t want the public to know that, because it is a lie that can be used to justify its spending policies and who gets the money, or indeed yet another round of austerity when it suits. A harmful ideology that feeds government policies and spending decisions.

The proof of the pudding lies in the fact that when it serves that agenda there is always money to fund a government’s own political priorities such as war or defence spending, or public contracts divvied out to its mates with no accountability. Only this week, Sunak revealed that the UK had given Ukraine £100 million worth of weaponry. And yet at the same time, he tells us that savings in government departments must be found by rooting out waste which can in turn, according to the household budget narrative, be used to fund public services, as if a government that issues its own currency has no money of its own and has to tax or borrow or make ‘savings’ by robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund its agenda.

While the Telegraph talks this week about the parlous state of the public finances and running out of road, suggesting that excessive government spending was crowding out investment in the private sector by discouraging ‘innovation and competition in crucial sectors such as health and education’ (which tells us a lot about the priorities of those on the conservative right), it claimed also that government spending levels were ‘indefensible.’  These statements are predicated on the lie that money is a finite and scarce resource and that the State and its public infrastructure is wasteful of hard-earned taxpayers’ money!

While the Telegraph talks tough by suggesting that spending needs to be cut even further, the Spring Budget is already a kick in the teeth for those who are currently struggling to make ends meet and will mean even more hardship and poverty as energy, food and other costs continue to rise. The Chancellor has made a political choice to create further difficulties for already beleaguered citizens on the promise of ‘jam tomorrow.’ Fiscal discipline over national economic well-being. What a cruel way to view the lives of millions of people, who it seems have become expendable in some people’s eyes where government finances are concerned. Better a balanced budget than a happier, healthier more productive nation.

Let us ask what is the role of government? To balance the budget, keep the wealthy happy and the profits rolling? Or something else? What we should be discussing is not the state of the government finances, whether it has balanced its budget or gilded its reputation as being fiscally prudent, but how it has managed the real but finite resources it can, if it chooses, access through its tax and other policies to create a sustainable and functioning economy which benefits everyone, not just a small section of it.

Thus, a healthy economy depends primarily, not on a private sector paying its taxes to provide vital public infrastructure, for too long the public has been misled on this issue. It depends instead on the spending and legislative decisions taken by a currency-issuing government to create the publicly paid for and preferably managed national and local infrastructure upon which we all depend as individuals and businesses, from health to education, welfare, public transport networks, and employment. Government in service to its electorate, not the corporate body. That should be the starting point for a discussion about where we go from here and involves creating a better public understanding of how government really spends.

In short, the current economic problems and inflationary pressures are not caused by too much government spending as some would have it, but by supply chain disruptions resulting from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the growing effects of climate change on the world economy including food production. This is a moment not for fiscal retrenchment but thinking best how to support working people in these difficult days and planning for a sustainable and fairer future for all.

 

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post Out-of-touch Chancellor’s Spring Statement fails to help those most in need appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Cartoon: Mint the NFTs

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/10/2021 - 7:50am in

Tags 

Comics, Debt, Deficit

Follow me on TwitterFacebookInstagram, or at my website.

To Fight The IMF’s Dire Prediction We Need More Government Debt – 10 daily

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/06/2020 - 2:29pm in

By Warwick Smith

This article was first published on April 15 2020 at 10daily, which has since shut down. I’m reproducing it here now partly to keep a record in case the web site ceases to exist. Update: the 10daily site has indeed been taken down so the above link is broken.

Yesterday, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released the latest World Economic Outlook, in which it predicted Australia’s economy would shrink 6.7 percent this year.

This would be the biggest single-year fall since 1930 at the height of the Great Depression. They expect unemployment to reach 7.6 percent this year and climb to 8.9 percent next year. Despite noting Australia’s very large government spending program, the IMF suggests that greater fiscal stimulus may be needed to avoid even worse outcomes.

Meanwhile, Australia’s major political parties are both stuck in misguided and outdated attitudes towards government debt and deficits. During last week’s parliamentary debate about the $130 billion JobKeeper legislation, Anthony Albanese said, “We are headed for a trillion-dollar debt… It is a bill that will saddle a generation.”

If this dangerous thinking is allowed to dominate both sides of the narrow political divide in Australia over the next few years, then we will see unnecessary hardship and further loss of jobs on the Australian people.

This misguided thinking comes from the notion that the federal government is like a nationwide household and that if we spend too much now, we, as a nation, will have to tighten our belts in the future to pay for it. This may make intuitive sense but much of the true nature of money is not intuitive.

Paying attention only to money and debt often causes people (including economists) to lose sight of the real economy. The real economy is the production and distribution of goods and services. Our material standard of living at any particular time depends almost exclusively on the goods and services we are able to produce (and purchase from overseas) at that time. Is it possible for future generations to send goods and services back in time to pay for the current COVID response expenditure? Of course not, that’s a ludicrous suggestion.

Okay, so if we focus on the real economy and forget about the money for a minute, what are the real future consequences of spending now to support businesses and households? The fewer businesses go broke now, the quicker the recovery and the more rapidly we can get back towards full employment. The closer we get to full employment (and the full use of our infrastructure, factories, equipment, etc) the more goods and services we can produce and the higher the material standard of living we can have.

So what about the trillion-dollar debt then?

We have a very clear historical precedent we can use to shed light on the impact of debt and on the choices that lie before us. The highest level of government debt Australia has ever had was accumulated during World War II.

debt and deficit history(Image: Ashley Owen, Stanford Brown)

This debt, 120 percent of GDP, would be equivalent to a debt today of well over two trillion dollars. If Anthony Albanese and Josh Frydenberg are right about the current debt burden, then post-war generations must have really struggled under that debt burden, right?

As it turns out, the opposite is true. The 25 years following WWII are often referred to as the post-war boom. We had strong economic growth, high wage growth, rapidly increasing material standards of living and falling inequality.

During this period governments of both political persuasions ran near constant modest deficits and the level of government debt to GDP fell sharply. This counter-intuitive miracle occurred because governments weren’t focussed on paying off the debt but were instead focussed on productivity and full employment.

Policy thinkers in the Curtin government, trained in the new economics developed by John Maynard Keynes, had seen massive unemployment during the Great Depression and then zero unemployment during the war. They figured that if the government could bring about full employment during the war then they could bring about full employment during peace time. They laid out this plan in 1945 in a remarkable white paper, Full Employment in Australia, that’s still very much worth reading today.

unemployment historyAustralia’s unemployment rate, 1901-2001. (Image: Australian Treasury)

Arguably the 20th century’s most influential economist, Keynes said, “Look after the unemployment and the budget will look after itself”. In the 25 years following WWII, unemployment in Australia averaged two percent and, as noted above, government debt to GDP fell sharply, despite governments continuing to run deficits.

The same could be true in the recovery from the COVID-induced recession — if only our politicians could understand it.

Falling debt to GDP while governments run deficits could occur because the combination of economic growth and inflation saw the economy outgrow the debt. The debt was never really paid off, but the Australian economy was fully employed and was producing enough goods and services to provide Australians with an increasingly higher standard of living.

As I’ve discussed elsewhere, Menzies very nearly lost the 1961 election because unemployment was creeping up towards three percent as a result of reduced government expenditure. Menzies, chastised by the result, immediately adopted Labor’s policy of intentionally running a deficit in order to reduce unemployment — and it worked.

The dangers of austerity

If we adopt the attitude currently dominant in both Labor and Coalition party rooms that this debt is a burden that must be paid off, we will have the opposite outcome. This could entail implementing so-called austerity policies, lifting taxes and/or cutting government expenditure in an effort to pay off the debt. Both increasing taxes and cutting government expenditure remove money from the non-government sector, right when they need it for the economic recovery.

Cutting government services, including health, mental health, education, research, environmental protection and more in order to pay off government debt will inevitably result in higher unemployment, worse health outcomes and worse economic outcomes. We know, both from sound economic theory and from the lessons of history, that we don’t need to focus on paying off the debt. This means, if we do suffer as a result of government debt repayments, that we are doing so as a political and ideological choice, not out of necessity.

Instead, we should focus on full employment and on the real economy and let the budget take care of itself.

Secular stagnation, secular exhilaration and fiscal policy

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 28/10/2014 - 11:49am in

Paul Krugman is right: secular stagnation has historically always referred to a situation of persistent low demand, which, according to my old 1971 Samuelson and Scott textbook, renders it inappropriate for governments to attempt to balance the budget over the business cycle (as per the principle of countercyclical compensation).

While in a secular stagnation (Is the shorthand 'SecStag' catching on?), Samuelson and Scott suggest that constant or near-constant government budget deficits are needed to sustain an adequate level of demand to achieve full employment, as shown here:

Samuelson and Scott (1971:437)
The policy stance required during secular stagnation contrasts with the stance needed during periods of so-called "secular exhilaration" (with high demand), during which the right policy is running budget surpluses as a way to avoid overheating the economy and reduce inflationary pressures.

It's true that sustained deficits will increase public debt; however, the low cost of borrowing that usually comes with secular stagnation should help to ensure public debt levels won't get out of hand.

But hasn't the experience of Japan in the 1990s taught us that big deficits don't work to stimulate a stagnant economy, you might ask?

The answer is no. Kenneth Kuttner and Adam Posen demonstrated in "Passive Savers and Policy Effectiveness in Japan" that low tax revenues caused by a weak economy were to blame for the rising debt levels, not expansionary fiscal policy.

Of course, it's important that the spending be directed toward productive use.

I can think of two ways to achieve this goal. First, governments should invest in early childhood learning, an investment that's well known to pay-off in the long-run. Second, investing in infrastructure is also a good bet, as demonstrated several years ago by David Aschauer and Alicia Munnell, and as recently recommended by the IMF.

References

Aschauer, D., 1989, "Is Public Expenditure Productive", Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 177-200.

IMF, "Is it time for an infrastructure push? The macroeconomic effects of public investments", Chapter 3, October 2014.

Kuttner, K. and A. Posen, "Passive Savers and Policy Effectiveness in Japan", Institute for International Economics, 2001.

Munnell, A., 1990, "Why has productivity declined? Productivity and Public Investment" New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, January/February issue, pp. 3-22.

Samuelson and Scott, Economics, 3rd Canadian Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit? (Secular stagnation edition)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 15/10/2014 - 5:47am in

Over 50 years ago, James Tobin wrote an article for the New Republic entitled "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit" (1963) that explains why the US federal government almost always needs to run a budget deficit.

The article is a gem. It has everything a good macroeconomics article should have: lots of debunking, all the relevant data, and a good dose of policy recommendations.

Unfortunately, the article is nowhere to be found on the internet. This post seeks to fix that by providing some key excerpts. Another purpose of this post is to use Tobin's analytical framework in that article and apply it to today's economic environment in the US.

Tobin on US Sectoral Financial Balances, circa 1963

The article starts off by describing the fundamental (iron?) law of financial balances:

For every buyer there must be a seller, and for every lender a borrower. One man's expenditure is another's receipt. My debts are your assets, my deficits your surplus. 

If each of us was consistently "neither borrower nor lender," as Polonius advised, no one would ever need to violate the revered wisdom of Mr. Micawber. But if the prudent among us insist on running and lending surpluses, some of the rest of us are willy-nilly going to borrow to finance budget deficits. 

In the United States today one budget that is usually left holding a deficit is that of the federal government. When no one else borrows the surpluses of the thrifty, the Treasury ends up doing so. Since the role of debtor and borrower is thought to be particularly unbecoming to the federal government , the nation feels frustated and guilty. 

Unhappily, crucial decisions of economic policy too often reflect blind reactions to these feelings. The truisms that borrowing is the counterpart of lending and deficits the counterpart of surpluses are overlooked in popular and Congressional discussions of government budgets and taxes. Both guilt feelings and policy are based serious misunderstanding of the origin of federal budget and surpluses. (1963:10)

Tobin then goes on to explain that both the household and financial sectors were running large financial surpluses (worth $20 billion combined in 1963):

American households and financial institutions consistently run financial surpluses. They have money to lend, beyond their own needs to borrow. As a group American households and non-profit institutions have in recent years shown a net financial surplus averaging about $15 billion a year -- that is, households are ready to lend, or to put into equity investments...more than they are ready to borrow. [...] In addition, financial institutions regularly generate a lendable surplus, now of the order of $5 billion a year. For the most part these institutions -- banks, saving and loans associations, insurance companies, pension funds, and like -- are simply intermediaries which borrow and relend the public's money. Their surpluses result from the fact that they earn more their lending operations than they distribute or credit to their depositors, shareowners, and policyholders. [...]

The article goes on to list the sectors of the economy that must borrow the $20 billion in surplus funds available from households and financial institutions:

State and local governments as a group have been averaging $3-4 billion a year of net borrowing...Unincorporated businesses, including farms, absorb another 3-4 billion a year. To the rest of the world we can lend perhaps $2 billion a year. We cannot lend abroad -- net -- more than the surplus of our exports over our imports of goods and services, and some of that surplus we give away in foreign aid. [...]

The remainder -- some $10-12 billion -- must be used either by nonfinancial corporate business or by the federal government. Only if corporations as a group take $10-12 billion of external funds, by borrowing or issuing new equities, can the federal government expect to break even. [...]

Tobin then follows into a discussion about the policy implications of these lending and borrowing dynamics:

The moral is inescapable, if startling. If you would like the federal deficit to be smaller, the deficits of business must be bigger. Would you like the federal government to run a surplus and reduce its debt? Then the business deficits must be big enough to absorb that surplus as well as the funds available from households and financial institutions. 

That does not mean business must run at a loss -- quite the contrary. Sometimes, it is true, unprofitable business are forced to borrow or to spend financial reserves just to stay afloat; this was a major reason for business deficits in the depths of the Great Depression. But normally it is business with good profits and good prospects that borrow and sell new shares of stock, in order to finance expansion and modernization...The incurring of financial deficits by business firms -- or by households and governments for that matter -- does not usually mean that such institutions are living beyond their means and consuming their capital. Financial deficits are typically the means of accumulating nonfinancial assets -- real property in the form of inventories, buildings and equipment. 

When does business run big deficits? When do corporations draw heavily on the capital markets? The record is clear: when business is very good, when sales are pressing hard on capacity, when businessmen see further expansion ahead. Though corporations' internal funds -- depreciation allowances and plowed-back profits -- are large during boom times, their investment programs are even larger. [...]

Recession, idle capacity, unemployment, economic slack -- these are the enemies of the balanced government budget. When the economy is faltering, households have more surpluses available to lend, and business firms are less inclined to borrow them. (1963:11)

The Corporate Sector: From Deficits to Large Surpluses

Of course, at the time Tobin wrote this article, US financial balances weren't exactly the same as they are today. Households as a group were running financial surpluses, the US was mostly a net lendor to the rest of the world, and the corporate sector was a net borrower of funds. Essentially, three things have changed since the mid-1980s with respect to financial balances (see charts below, double-click to enlarge).




First, starting in the mid-1980s, the US has become a net borrower to the rest of the world. Second, since the early 1990s and until the financial crisis, households were net borrowers to other sectors; since 2007, the household sector has returned to its traditional role of being a net lender. Finally, since the 1990s, the corporate sector has been at different times either a net lender or net borrower. However, since 2009, the corporate sector has been running a very large net financial surplus.*

What is the main policy implication to take-away from this state of affairs?

I would venture that the main take-away is that it's unlikely the US federal government will balance its budget any time soon unless households and/or firms start spending again.

In a recent article for an IMF publication entitled "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", economist Robert Solow (MIT) discussed the business sector's net lending position as a possible sign that there may be a "shortage of investment opportunities yielding a rate of return acceptable to investors" or, stated differently, that the "real rate of interest compatible with full utilization is negative, and not consistently achievable", a situation associated with the notion of "secular stagnation":

In the United States, at least, business investment has recovered only partially from the recession, although corporate profits have been very strong. The result, as pointed out in an unpublished paper by Brookings Institution Senior Fellows Martin Baily and Barry Bosworth, is that business saving has exceeded business investment since 2009. The corporate sector, normally a net borrower, became a net lender to the rest of the economy. This does smell rather like a reaction to an expected fall in the rate of return on investment, as the stagnation hypothesis suggests. (see chart below)

Source: Baily and Bosworth, 2013Secular Stagnation

So what can be done? Paul Samuelson and Anthony Scott asked a similar question in the 1971 Canadian edition of their Economics textbook:

What if our continental economy is in for what Harvard's Alvin Hansen called "secular stagnation"? - which means a long period in which slowing population increase, [...], high corporate saving, the vast piling up of capital goods, and a bias toward capital-saving inventions will imply depressed investment schedules relative to saving schedules? Will not active fiscal policy designed to wipe out such deflationary gaps then result in running a deficit most of the time, leading to a secular growth in the public debt? The modern answer is "Under these conditions, yes; and over the decades the budget should not necessarily be balanced." (1971:436-7)

In my next post, I'll write more about secular stagnation and policy responses to address its possible eventuality.

* This post by Brian Romanchuk contains many useful charts and information on financial balances, as well as discusses secular stagnation from a stock-flow consistent perspective.

Update: I added charts on 2014-10-14, following a comment by Ramanan.

References

Baily, M. N., B. Bosworth, "The United States Economy: Why such a weak recovery", September 11, 2013, Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Samuelson and Scott, Economics, 3rd Canadian Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1971

Solow, R., "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", in Looming Ahead, Finance and Development, vol. 51 , no.3. September 2014.

Tobin, J., "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit?", New Republic, January 19, 1963

Pages