government debt

‘Two roads diverged in a yellow wood’. The question is which one will we take?

Man standing in a wood at a fork where paths divergePhoto by Vladislav Babienko on Unsplash

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood’ are the opening words of a poem by the celebrated poet Robert Frost. Whilst he was writing about his own personal life’s journey, they are words that could not be more appropriate to the situation that not just the UK, but the planet, finds itself in. The COVID-19 pandemic which has brought world economies to a standstill and threatens a deep recession is uppermost in our minds, particularly those people who have been directly affected by the disease or by loss of their employment. But those immediate threats, devastating enough as they are proving to be with no immediate solutions and a government anxious to get the economy going again regardless of the potential human consequences, are overshadowed by another peril. Climate change remains the biggest challenge of all, risking as it does the very survival of the planet’s ecosystems and by implication human existence.

Our daily routines have until now imposed a false sense of permanence. The illusion that despite the cyclical economic instability which capitalist societies are prone to, everything always, eventually, returns to ‘normal’. Even when normal has patently shifted. We have accepted this as part and parcel of how things are, even when it hurts people. But the severity of the pandemic is challenging that view. We are finding that in addition to the risky nature of life which COVID-19 has revealed, danger also comes from the fact that our economic system has been built on shaky ground indeed – one might say quicksand. The rolling death toll and the degradation of our public services is a daily reminder.

As the country moves towards a lifting of lockdown and a return to semi-normality, we are seeing more cars on the road, beaches crowded with day-trippers, people travelling hundreds of miles to visit beauty spots, the prospect of schools re-opening amidst huge controversy and airlines proposing to recommence flights, the question hangs in the air about what sort of future lies ahead. Whether we can indeed continue along the perilous path of growth we have been travelling along without some sort of future reckoning. And if not, what should our world look like?

COVID-19 and its associated threats have revealed in the starkest way possible that the economic system which prevailed for the last forty years and more has left the world unable to meet the challenges so cruelly posed by the pandemic. All as a result of a toxic neoliberal ideology which has left our public and social infrastructure in ruins, impoverished people as a direct consequence of a globalised world which has kept wages and living standards down and focused on the primacy of the individual over collective action. Politicians have listened to the so-called economic gurus and put their faith in a mystical market as if somehow it alone can direct the orchestra from the celestial podium. Letting it rip to find that non-existent perfect equilibrium by serving global corporations through legislative means, promoting the lie of trickle-down, and claiming that the public infrastructure depends on so-called ‘wealth creators’.

We have paid a heavy price and we are indeed at a fork in the road. Where we go from here is not clear. And yet the choices we make next will make all the difference.

Earlier this week, the President of the World Bank said that ‘the pandemic and shutdown of advanced economies could push as many as 60 million people into extreme poverty’. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same week warned that Britain was facing a ‘severe recession the likes of which we haven’t seen’ which would cause severe damage to the UK’s economy. He also went back on earlier predictions of an ‘immediate bounce back’ as the lockdown was lifted and said that there would be more hardship to come.

This came as the Treasury confirmed that around eight million UK workers have now been furloughed and two million are expected to receive support from the government. The government’s spending has risen massively to support those affected and keep businesses ticking over until such time as a recovery is underway.

Although there has been some talk of more austerity to pay for this spending, even the most hawkish of commentators from neoliberal institutions like the Adam Smith Institute recognise that the last thing we need now is to worsen the prospect of a full-scale depression, even if those observations are still couched in household budget terms. Borrowing whilst interest rates are low or growing the economy to improve tax revenues are the oft-repeated caveats to that spending. Clearly, this is not closing the door to such false household budget narratives.

It is politically expedient to accept the need for spending to stop the economy from collapsing and causing infinite damage to the business infrastructure and profits much as the Labour government did in 2008 when it bailed out the banks. But in time, those narratives will likely be given a fresh breath of life at least in terms of continuing to deliver a political agenda.

It will likely bring the next instalment of austerity for public services and their employees’ wages and carrying on along the well-trodden path which favours corporations by delivering a legislative framework not just at national level but international level through the pursuit of free trade deals.

The state with its power of the public purse being used, not for the public purpose, but for quite a different estate – the corporations and a few wealthy elites. Indeed, this week the media, economists, politicians and political commentators have been priming the public for the acceptance of more austerity by reinforcing the message that governments have to borrow or that government has to collect money from tax revenue or other charges before it can spend.

Both the Huffington Post and the BBC ran articles this week discussing how governments pay for the government’s increase in spending through bond issuance. Peter Hitchens tweeted that Rishi Sunak’s furlough billions were just giant payday loan that the country will have to pay back with interest (at some future date). And Boris Johnson when challenged about the decision to continue charging health and care workers to use the NHS (before the decision to rescind the charge) suggested that the money was needed to run the NHS. Indeed, Captain Tom has been knighted for his work in raising money for the NHS as if the institution was a charity and not a publicly funded organisation which does not require tax or other contributions to fund it.

The narrative being reinforced in in the public’s mind is that at some time down the track it will all have to be paid for through more austerity or increased tax. It is worth repeating here that a sovereign currency-issuing government does not need to borrow in order to spend. Indeed, logically speaking how could it borrow money unless it had been spent by the government first? What looks like borrowing isn’t and bond issuance has quite another role. It is instead a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to give the appearance of borrowing and continue the narrative that governments are beholden to money lenders in private markets or that the markets call the tunes.

Dispelling the myths about how governments spend is a priority if we are to give ourselves half a chance to make a different and better world. As was indicated at the beginning of this blog COVID-19 and recession are just part of this picture. The talk about ‘getting back to normal’ overshadows the biggest threat that we still face – climate change and what our response should be. The false narrative of the burden of debt and paying it back will, if allowed to persist, persuade people that action to deal with any of those threats whether unemployment caused by a COVID-19 induced recession or climate change is unaffordable in the long term. That there is always a financial price to pay.

The reality is that the price will not be monetary, it will be in the lives of people who are unemployed, and a trashed planet not fit to live on. We will be rulers of a dead planet, poisoned by our own hand.

There is an alternative. It starts with knowing about how money works and being able to challenge the current narrative that success is to be judged by how well our politicians managed the public accounts.

Contrary to Mrs Thatcher’s oft-repeated slogan ‘there is no alternative’; there is one.

This is the moment to think about a permanent Job Guarantee to manage both the catastrophic effects of COVID-19 on people’s lives and the economy in terms of stabilising it through ending involuntary unemployment and facilitating the transition towards a green and sustainable world. So much potential but will our government act?

Maybe that time is coming; only time will tell. The political discourse has so far been dedicated to a return to normality, growth and rising GDP.

Fiona Harvey, the environment correspondent in the Guardian began an article this week with a stark warning:

‘Global leaders must heed the lessons of the financial crisis of 2008 when they look to repair the damage from the coronavirus pandemic, leading experts have warned, to avoid entrenching disastrous social, health and environmental inequalities and hastening climate breakdown.

The stakes are high.

Earlier this month the Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment published its paper ‘Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?

In its introduction, it noted that the crisis had demonstrated that governments can intervene decisively once the scale of an emergency is clear and public support is present. It went on to say that:

‘The climate emergency is like the COVID-19 emergency, just in slow motion and much graver. Both involve market failures, externalities, international cooperation, complex science, questions of system resilience, political leadership, and action that hinges on public support. Decisive state interventions are also required to stabilise the climate, by tipping energy and industrial systems towards newer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper modes of production that become impossible to outcompete’

Its recommendations for contributing to achieving economic and climate goals were:

  • clean physical infrastructure investment
  • building efficiency retrofits
  • investment in education and training to address immediate unemployment from COVID-19 and structural unemployment from decarbonisation, — natural capital investment for ecosystem resilience and regeneration
  • clean R&D investment.

A state-run Job Guarantee implemented to serve both national and local community objectives offers the perfect vehicle to deliver a green-led recovery and reduce the inequality of past decades. Retrofitting existing buildings, creating cities which are cyclist and pedestrian-friendly, digging trenches for broadband connections, planting trees or putting in networks for charging electric-powered vehicles are just a few examples of the work that Job Guarantee participants could accomplish. Our imagination can determine the rest. Serving the public purpose must be the quest.

A Job Guarantee provides an immediate solution to the problem of rising unemployment to stabilise the economy, an opportunity for training the workforce and, out of the catastrophe of pandemic, also provides the perfect opportunity to start along the path towards a more equitable, greener and sustainable world.

We as a nation may also want to consider what sort of future we want in terms of public infrastructure to serve the public purpose. Do we want more state provision – a publicly provided and paid for infrastructure and employment to ensure that we can meet whatever the future holds? If the current situation is anything to go by, there are lessons to be learnt. Or do we prefer to continue as we are and move into a Mad Max dystopian type world where corporate profit is the guiding light and government is its servant?

Brian O’Callaghan, a co-author of the paper said that it was ‘this is the single biggest opportunity for the government to shape the future decade…’ which indeed it is.

Robert Frost ended his poem:

‘Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.’

Therein lies the challenge. Not directly a personal one in this case but one which involves us all. Do we continue as we are or choose another path for the sake of the future and those that will inherit it?

 

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

Viber icon
Viber

The post ‘Two roads diverged in a yellow wood’. The question is which one will we take? appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

We don’t have to accept a corporate blueprint for a future world. The alternative is to forge a collective vision based on solid values and publicly provided foundations to enable human and planetary flourishing.

Image by Alexas_Fotos from Pixabay

‘We hope this pandemic will teach us that in normal times we must build up our supplies, our infrastructure, and our institutions to be able to deal with crises. We should not wait for the next national crisis to live up to our means’.

Yeva Nersisyan and L Randall Wray

Austerity and cuts to public spending have taken a wrecking ball to our public infrastructure, not least local government. As central government funding was cut as a deliberate austerity policy, councils have spent the last 10 years trying to balance their books by cutting services and increasing local taxes and other charges to make ends meet. In 2019 council leaders said that government funding cuts would leave a £25bn black hole – leaving some councils having to consider bankruptcy as an option. The COVID-19 crisis is revealing the scale of the damage which has been done to the vital public infrastructure, particularly that which serves our local communities.

Despite the government’s COVID-19 crisis bailouts amounting to £3.2bn last month and additional money for social care, the writing is on the wall. Windsor and Maidenhead District Council said it was ready to file for bankruptcy as a result of its predicted £14m shortfall with only £6m in reserves. Many other councils face similar dilemmas. What options are left when they have already cut their spending to the bone to keep delivering their statutory duties which include social care? Already, there have been huge cuts to local services.

Hundreds of libraries closed, children’s and adult social services cut, a public health budget which has faced hundreds of millions of pounds in cuts since 2014/15, fewer waste collections, cuts to parks, sports, arts and leisure services not to mention increased outsourcing of public services including social care to private contractors to cut costs. While the focus has been rightly on how rundown the NHS has become as a result of a decade of austerity, council services which have also borne the brunt of cuts have left the UK totally unprepared with insufficient staffing and a degraded infrastructure to cope.

And now the situation has become so dire that even statutory duties are no longer sacred. Last month it was reported that a number of councils had taken advantage of the government’s COVID-19 emergency measures which allow them to suspend their duties to provide elements of adult social care so that resources can be redirected towards coronavirus support.

While government ministers claim, from their ivory towers, that they stand behind councils and that they are giving them the funding they need, the evidence is to the contrary. The horse has already bolted from the stable and did so the day George Osborne imposed austerity on the nation. Ten years of cuts cannot be remedied quickly and easily; you cannot rebuild overnight that infrastructure that has been lost. Without adequate central government funding now, local government will remain a shadow of its former self or indeed may not survive in its current form. With social care budgets making up over half of what councils spend then it is clear that something will have to give. It is likely that the axe will fall not just on remaining services but also on social care; the review of which has yet to take place having been kicked down the road endless times by successive governments.

We are facing the demise of local government and local democracy for more centralised decision making which can only be to the detriment of our local communities who are served best by those that know them best. Local government needs a massive injection of funds to allow it to implement both central and local initiatives, not just to manage this emergency but to ensure that the economy can rebuild itself and flourish in the future. It needs to rebuild the infrastructure that currently sits in tatters as a result of deliberate government policies to dismantle it. All it lacks is real political will.

Some deride local government, but without the services that it provides our lives have become poorer. We are beginning to recognise that, along with our NHS and other public services, they form the bedrock of our local communities. COVID-19 has revealed their vital nature in this time of national emergency. As the spotlight falls on our public infrastructure which has been so cruelly stripped down, it highlights the terrible cost of austerity. Not just in deaths from COVID-19, the scale of which was preventable had the government acted sooner, but also deaths caused by government policies and reforms to the social security system which have dehumanised people, left them impoverished, hungry, homeless and sometimes suicidal.

While we witness the very real consequences of the economic ideologies pursued by successive governments, which have denied the value of our public infrastructure except in profit terms for private corporations serviced with public money, we are now also witnessing another battle. The battle about the affordability of the current round of government spending and the perennial question about where the money will come from to pay for it.

This week, two articles appeared in the Telegraph which is not known for its progressive stance. The first suggested that according to a leaked Treasury document the country could face a ‘sovereign debt crisis’ and it set out a package of tax rises and spending cuts which would be aimed at ‘enhancing credibility and boosting investor confidence.’ It proposed an end to the triple lock on state pension increases and a two-year public sector pay freeze (so much for all that clapping on the steps of No.10). In effect, it suggested that higher debt now will have to be paid for in the future to stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio and ‘prevent debt from growing on an unsustainable trajectory’.

Then, in the same week, another more surprising article entitled ‘The Treasury is wrong’: we don’t need hair-shirt austerity’ contradicted that proposition and said that ‘it was a sure-fire formula for structural damage and an economic depression.’ It also suggested that ‘we should be cutting taxes to support the economy’ and said that ‘the idea that we need significant spending cuts or tax rises is completely wrong.’ The author ended by commenting that it was ‘extraordinary that a sovereign country with all levers of economic policy under its own control should contemplate such self-harm’’. Whilst it is true that the article is still couched in the orthodox household budget narrative that austerity would lower future tax take and thus would be counterproductive for the public finances, it does nevertheless point out that such a course of action would be tantamount to a ‘scorched earth policy’.

However, confusion seems to reign in Tory-supporting circles as on Friday Boris Johnson, rejecting the Treasury floated proposal for more austerity to cover the cost of the coronavirus crisis, said that there was no question of freezing public sector workers’ pay and that the government were intending to spend heavily on infrastructure as the country exited lockdown. On the other hand, whether one can trust Johnson’s promises is another matter, given his track record on truth-telling both before the crisis and through it. Whilst he has a very short memory it is also possible that it will be a short career as Prime Minister. Clearly, it reveals potential tensions between No 10 and the current occupant of No 11, but it also demonstrates that the standard household budget orthodoxy still takes precedence even if it is purely a mechanism to deliver a political agenda rather than a recognition of how governments really spend.

We should remember whose pockets have benefited these last couple of months from public money. Only this week, it was revealed that the government had awarded £1bn worth of contracts to private companies bypassing the tendering process and thus any accountability. It had also failed to use NHS Laboratory capacity for testing, preferring to give the work to private companies. The lie of the land is easy to see. There is never a shortage of public money for corporations, but when it comes to public services the magic money tree goes into hibernation.

That we are seeing challenges to the economic orthodoxy of the past few decades is a positive step forward. Less positive is that it is still being seen in terms of productive economy meaning more taxes and less debt as if the national debt were the single most harmful issue that the nation faces. The suggestion that the government could face a sovereign debt crisis is the same as David Cameron deceitfully suggested in 2010; that we were like Greece and could go bankrupt if we didn’t get our public finances under control.

However, as many more people are beginning to realise, the UK government as the currency issuer can never run out of money and cannot become insolvent. When it issues bonds, which are portrayed erroneously as borrowing, it can always meet those liabilities upon maturity including any interest accrued. In fact, it doesn’t even have to issue debt to cover its deficit.

The bottom line is that the national debt represents our assets – our savings – not a burden on the nation, either now or for future generations. In 1945, when our debt to GDP ratio was around 240%, we built our NHS and put in place a social security system to protect people from cradle to grave. That spending represented a real investment in the future of the nation and the economy and in doing it we didn’t go bankrupt then, any more than we can now.

It is vital to turn this damaging narrative on its head. Deficits do matter, but not in the way we tend to think they do. They are normal and necessary, representing as they do our savings and the money circulating in the economy. Rather than focusing on the size of the national debt, it would be better to ask questions about what that debt represents. What was it spent on and why and who benefited or lost out? The answers to those questions will vary depending on the economic conditions of the day and the political agenda of the government in power.

The record of any government, which includes a range of factors from social to economic including full employment, is the real measure of success. Not whether it was fiscally disciplined and achieved a balanced budget. Damaging a nation’s health and prosperity cannot in any way be defined as success. The Conservatives spent ten years destroying it and regardless of how much money is promised now or in the future, it will take time to rebuild that lost public infrastructure if indeed they choose to do so.

In these difficult times, we are seeing the consequences of austerity on everything that we have hitherto valued but have maybe taken for granted. We have allowed successive governments to whittle away at those public structures upon which the foundations of a fairer society were built in the post-war period. We have accepted, not just the lie of unaffordability because we understandably compared the state finances to our own household budgets, but also that the market provided better outcomes for publicly paid-for services as if the government could be compared to a profit and loss business. This, in turn, has given corporations huge influence and power in Westminster and has lined their pockets, at the expense of good quality publicly funded and managed provision.

Those lies are now unravelling. Let’s make sure they unravel to a conclusion which invites a re-examination of our values and a commitment to creating a collective vision of the future which is both environmentally sustainable and fairer for all. Failure to challenge the rapid transformation of our society into a corporate free-for-all will leave us impoverished automatons in its service.

 

 

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

Viber icon
Viber

The post We don’t have to accept a corporate blueprint for a future world. The alternative is to forge a collective vision based on solid values and publicly provided foundations to enable human and planetary flourishing. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Norwood Hanson, Paul Krugman and MMT

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 29/03/2020 - 10:00pm in

Phil Armstrong, University of Southampton Solent and York College

 2020

 

 1. Norwood Hanson: Is the sun going around the Earth or the Earth going around the sun?

 

Norwood Russell Hanson (1961) considers the conceptual foundations of science; he notes that the work of scientists involves observation. However, such observation is likely to be interpreted differently by different observers, as consistent with an acceptance of the view that all facts are theory-laden (but, importantly, not theory determined). Hanson focuses upon how we conceptualise what we see into general systems, ‘Let us examine not how observation, facts and data are built up into general systems of physical explanation, but how these systems are built into our observations, and our appreciation of facts and data’ (Hanson 1961: 3).

Hanson considers how different observers perceive things differently. He talks about Tycho Brahe[1] and Kepler looking up at the sky, and asks a question, ‘Kepler regarded the sun as fixed: it was the Earth that moved. But Tycho followed Ptolemy[2] and Aristotle in this much at least: the Earth was fixed and all other celestial bodies moved around it. Do Kepler and Tycho see the same thing in the east at dawn?’ (Hanson 1961: 5). Hanson argues that ‘people, not their eyes, see’ (Hanson 1961: 6) and develops his story by noting, ‘Tycho and Simplicius[3] see a mobile sun, Kepler and Galileo see a static sun’ (Hanson 1961: 17) and later notes, ‘Our sense observation shows only that in the morning the distance between the horizon and the sun is increasing, but it does not tell us whether the sun is ascending or the horizon is descending…For Galileo and Kepler the horizon drops; for Simplicius and Tycho and the sun rises’ (Hanson 1961:182). Hanson points out that ‘There is a sense, then, in which seeing is a ‘theory-laden’ undertaking (Hanson 1961: 19) and ‘The observer…aims only to get his observations to cohere against a background of established knowledge’ (Hanson 1961: 20).

 

2. Paul Krugman like Tycho and Simplicius

 

Moving on from the solar system to the financial system we move from asking whether the sun revolves around the Earth (or vice versa) to asking if taxes fund spending (or vice versa); specifically, when we consider the dynamic nature of the efflux and reflux of credit and debits in relation to government’s account we might conceptualise what we observe in two ways:  first we may ‘see’ the taxation (or borrowing) as funding the spending or (lending) [view A]  or second, as the spending (or lending) funding the taxation (or borrowing) [view B].[4]

In this context, we might reasonably compare Paul Krugman to Tycho and Simplicius. By way of example, I might consider a recent series of Twitter posts from Krugman (I have collected them into one passage below).

“I’ve been getting some questions from readers wondering about the cost of the not-a-stimulus (it’s actually disaster relief) package. “Where’s the $2 trillion coming from? Thin air?” Basically, yes. We went through this argument back in 2008-2009, when many people (including some who should have known better) worried that government borrowing was going to “crowd out” private investment. There are times when that happens, but this isn’t one of them. In the most immediate sense, the govt. is going to borrow the money — and its borrowing costs are near record lows, despite the surging deficit…But where does the borrowed money come from? Basically, right now we have trillions in private savings with no place to go, because private investment demand isn’t sufficient to use them; who’s going to invest in the face of a plague of unknown duration? So government borrowing just draws on this pool of excess savings. Furthermore, in so doing it helps prevent an even steeper economic contraction” (Paul Krugman, combined 5 tweets 27/03/20, emphasis added).

It is clear from the text that Krugman implicitly accepts view A. The italicised sections show this most clearly. By acknowledging the possibility of ‘crowding out’[5], arguing that ‘the govt. is going to borrow the money’ and that ‘government borrowing just draws on this pool of excess savings’, it is clear that Krugman conceptualises the government as a currency-user; a position that, as I will show below – in common with Ptolemaic astronomy -is not consistent with the evidence.

 

3. Modern Monetary Theorists like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler

 

Returning to our discussion of the solar system we might note that the eventual triumph of heliocentrism did not come quickly or easily. Much hard work from astronomers was required but eventually, the battle was won and, ‘By the eighteenth century, after the successes of Galileo, Kepler and Newton, the universe was construed as an intricate geometric-arithmetic puzzle’ (Hanson 1961: 66). I might argue that shifts in worldview are prompted by the observation of some deeply significant anomaly (or anomalies) (Kuhn 1962). In this context,  Hanson (1961: 68-9)  notes, “We ask, ‘What is its cause?’ selectively: we ask only when we are confronted with some breach of routine, an event that stands out and leads us to ask after its nature and genesis.” Hanson refers to retroduction[6] and argues “A theory is not pieced together from observed phenomena; it is rather what makes it possible to observe phenomena as being of a certain sort, and as related to other phenomena. Theories put phenomena into systems. They are built up ‘in reverse’ – retroductively” (Hanson 1961:90).

In the same way that Tycho and Kepler ‘see’ the same things, those who conceptualise the government as a currency-user – such as all mainstream economists and many so-called ‘progressives’ such as Krugman – and those who conceptualise it as a currency-issuer – notably the advocates of MMT – ‘see’ the same things. The issue is how to decide which view is consistent with the development of a theory with the most explanatory power? Returning to the issue of anomalies – or unforeseen observations – we have a clue to the answer. The economics profession has long argued that heightened public deficits would lead to higher long term interest rates and, in turn, that these higher interest rates would lead to lower private investment or ‘crowding out’. This hypothesis follows from their view of the government as a currency-user which borrows from a ‘fixed pot’ of saving in competition with private borrowers.  This prediction was decisively falsified during, and immediately after, the global financial crisis when all the world’s major nations with their own currencies, operating under floating exchange rates, saw declines, not increases, in long term interest rates on government debt[7]. It is true that some, although by no means all – Eurozone nations did see a rise in long term interest rates. However, since MMT explicitly recognises the distinction between Eurozone nations (which have ceded currency-issuing power to another entity – the ECB) and currency-issuing nations, it recognises that Eurozone nations should be conceptualised as currency-users meaning that this outcome is exactly in line with the expectations of MMT[8].

An understanding of MMT removes the supposed element of ‘surprise’ from what is a highly significant anomaly from the perspective of mainstream economics, The advocates of MMT are able – retroductively – to posit the structures and mechanisms which explain this contrast between currency-issuing and currency-using states and I would, therefore, argue that MMT provides the basis for the provision of a satisfying explanation of observed phenomena – absent from mainstream thinking based upon ‘seeing’ the state as a currency-user.

In contrast to perspective which underpins the comments made by Krugman, above, Modern Monetary Theorists contend that when a nation has its own sovereign currency and operates under floating exchange rates, ‘borrowing’ by the state is not operationally required. The government should be thought of as a currency-issuer; it spends first and creates reserves, ex nihilo. It is never revenue-constrained as a currency-user might be. The so-called ‘borrowing’ operation which removes the reserves is voluntary (Mosler 2012). It could allow any untaxed spending to remain in the system. However, such a policy would result in the overnight rate falling to zero (if no other action was taken, such as the central bank agreeing to pay interest on excess reserves).

However, it must be conceded that the difficulties involved in replacing deeply-embedded theories (or paradigms in Kuhn’s [1962] terminology) should not be underestimated and I would argue that this is particularly the case in economics. The economics academy has been highly successful in reducing the ability of alternative perspectives to gain traction. Contrary to their professed acceptance of the principle of falsification, mainstream economists have introduced numerous ad hoc modifications to their apparently failed theories (Armstrong 2018) to avoid falsification. However, despite this disappointing situation, the position of mainstream economics is far from impregnable and the advocates of MMT must continue to challenge its hegemonic status. We can only hope that mainstream economics and its conceptualisation of the state as a currency-user is eventually destined to be consigned to the status of an episode in the history of economic thought, following in the footsteps geocentric thinking in astronomy.

 

References

 

Armstrong, P. (2018), ‘MMT and an Alternative Heterodox Paradigm’, Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies, https://gimms.org.uk/2018/12/26/mmt-heterodox-alternative-paradigm/.

Bhaskar, R., (2017), The Order of Natural Necessity, Gary Hawke (ed.), Luxemburg: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Galilei, G. (1632/1953), Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo), Berkley: University of California Press.

Hanson. N (1961), Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mosler, W (2012), Soft Currency Economics II, US Virgin Islands: Valance.

 

 

[1] Tycho Brahe (1546 – 1601) was a Danish astronomer who developed a view of the solar system which recognised that the moon orbits the Earth and the planets orbit the sun, but retained the position that the sun orbits the Earth.

[2] Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 100 – c. 170) was a Greek mathematicianastronomer and astrologer whose Ptolemaic approach suggests that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

[3] Galileo compares the Copernican with the Ptolemaic systems in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632). In the text, Simplicio presents the case for the Ptolemaic system and argues against the Copernican alternative. The character’s name is generally supposed to be derived from that of a sixth-century follower of Aristotle, Simplicius of Cilicia.

[4] A third view might be summed up by the question, ‘Is the distinction important?’ I would argue that the distinction is important since the government can spend without prior tax revenue whereas prior spending (or lending) is logically and historically required for taxes to be paid. Thus only view B above is valid.

[5] The crowding-ou hypothesis suggests that heightened government deficits lead to higher long term interest rates and that,  in turn, these higher rates, reduce – or ‘crowd out’ – private investment. Little or no evidence to support this hypothesis exists (Armstrong 2018).

[6] In the retroductive moment, a scientist imagines a mechanism or structure which, if it were true, would explain the event or regularity in question. It is the use of the imagination to posit explanatory mechanisms and structures’ (Bhaskar 2017: 28).

[7] Armstrong (2018).

[8] Armstrong (2018)

 

 

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

Viber icon
Viber

The post Norwood Hanson, Paul Krugman and MMT appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Rishi Sunak is wrong. ‘Righting the ship’ won’t require any taxpayers to ‘chip in’ to cover the cost of his spending plans – not now, in the future, or ever. 

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 29/03/2020 - 4:37am in

Scientists wearing masks holding sign with the slogan "Together we do it"Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman statesman, lawyer and academic sceptic philosopher. He wrote ‘The Safety of the People shall be the Highest Law.’

This week, it was reported that the former health secretary Jeremy Hunt was in charge when medical advice to stockpile protective equipment in event of a flu pandemic was rejected on the grounds that stockpiling would be too expensive. By this decision, it would seem that this government chose deliberately to put cost over the health of its citizens, thus perpetuating the myths about the unaffordability of public services. The health and safety of the nation has been in the hands of a government which thought saving money was more important than keeping people protected. Jeremy Hunt claimed a while back, that public services depended on a healthy economy. That falsity will come to haunt him as we find out the hard way that it is, in fact, the other way around. A healthy economy depends on a healthy nation.

The neoliberal order which has dominated the global corridors of power for more than 40 years, combined with monetarist policies and more recently austerity following the global financial crash, has led to the destruction of public and social infrastructure not just here but in many developed nations around the world including the EU trading bloc. It lies at the heart of this crisis.

The horrors we are seeing in Spain, France, Italy, the US and other countries as the COVID-19 coronavirus compromises the ability of health and other public services to cope underline painfully the consequences of government decisions. Governments which rejected the power of the state to serve its citizens, promoting the god of the markets – the invisible hand – instead, have appeased it at every turn to favour the global corporations which have dictated the rules.

In the UK, despite the early advice from other experts in countries where coronavirus had already struck, government prevarication and failure to act expeditiously has allowed the disease to spread through the nation affecting many, not just those who are elderly with underlying health conditions. All human life is precious and yet this government has treated some as expendable and put the lives of those in the front line in the health service at risk.

As GIMMS noted in a previous MMT Lens, we will pay a heavy price for the ‘just in time’ approach to our health and public services and the lie that they were only affordable if the economy was doing well.  The media, having done little to hold the government to account for decades and especially in the last 10 years, has left us without sufficient nurses, doctors and health workers, beds, ventilators, ICUs and other equipment. Our health professionals are still crying out for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and are selflessly putting their own health at risk for others.  They are crying out for ventilators to keep people alive. They are crying out to be tested to keep themselves and their patients safe.

A healthy economy relies on public infrastructure, which is in short supply as a result of government choice. Ramping up the much-needed supplies is proving slow and difficult, not to mention demonstrating government incompetence. A good government delivering public purpose would have meant that we would have been better able to deal with this emergency and we might not be witnessing its current trajectory.

Our public infrastructure has been the victim of government cuts and we are now paying the price for the breakdown which is occurring as a result of limited or non-existent emergency planning, deregulation to suit market demands and privatisation – which have all been justified by the lie that the state had no money of its own and public services were a luxury determined by the health of the economy.

When the Chancellor got up to announce his spending plans and the measures to help those now unable to work, people cheered. If nothing else, this should have demonstrated quite clearly that the government was not constrained by tax or borrowing in order to spend, despite the charade that successive governments have played out about how its spending is paid for.

With big business queuing up for handouts (reminiscent of those banks that were too big to fail who were bailed out with public money) for others, it has been like squeezing blood from a stone. The very people who form the backbone of society, who keep it functioning and contribute to the economy through their work – the self-employed in particular – are being asked to jump through hoops to get any money at all, leaving them struggling and worrying about the future. People who for a decade have been living hand to mouth with scarce or no savings, working in zero-hours employment, the gig economy or in part-time work, will have to wait months for the government to pay up. Those in desperate need without employment are being asked to apply for Universal Credit for a measly £94.50 a week hanging on in telephone queues which can be as long as 90,000. It will not be long before those who congratulated the Chancellor for his largesse will have to think again, as bills go unpaid and people go hungry. People need support now, not later. The breakdown of society is in the offing if the government fails to act as it could now simply by authorising the central bank to make payments through HMRC who hold our data.

Alongside the tragedy which is playing out, the household budget narrative is never far behind, even in the words of Rishi Sunak who during his announcement of measures for the self-employed claimed that when this emergency was over we’d have ‘to chip in to right the ship’ promoting yet again that at some time in the future there will be a cost to taxpayers. Which in short there will not, since the government does not need to collect tax before it can spend!

Next, an ITV newsreader asked, ‘can the public finances take the strain?’ And this was followed by Robert Peston telling the TV audience that we’ll be ‘paying off the national debt for years’. To be clear – for the UK government, which is the currency issuer, there is no strain on the public finances and there will be no future burden on the taxpayer.

The Tax-Payers Alliance then announced that in future there would have to be ‘growth-enhancing’ measures and spending restraint’ both mutually exclusive positions which hark back to a false claim that cutting public spending could lift growth. The evidence is before us right now that this is not true.

Finally, the journalist Philip Inman suggested that Sunak’s budget spending spree could come at a high price, ‘fighting a war with borrowed money.’ Except that the government, as the currency issuer, does not need to borrow to cover its deficits; nor does it need to issue bonds in order to spend.

Our public and social infrastructure is under severe pressure and cracking under the strain, and people are suffering and dying. And yet they are still arguing about the financial cost of the Chancellor’s spending as if deficits and borrowing were the devil, balanced budgets the epitome of a government’s economic success or that there will be a price to pay if fiscal prudence is abandoned.

The ONLY cost in the future is the human cost we will face if the government fails to act in a manner that secures the lives of citizens, ensures they can pay their bills and eat during this emergency.  Fiscal prudence is the least of our worries!

We must today, tomorrow and in the future, keep holding to account government, politicians and all those who peddle the economic orthodoxy that there is no money. The Chancellor has shown that there is the possibility to spend without checking the public purse first. It is a political choice. So much is now at stake and we need as nations to keep pushing with more persistence until change happens. The battle lines are being drawn as we speak. The coronavirus, hard as it is, may be our societal wake-up call. Let’s hope so.

 

 

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

Viber icon
Viber

The post Rishi Sunak is wrong. ‘Righting the ship’ won’t require any taxpayers to ‘chip in’ to cover the cost of his spending plans – not now, in the future, or ever.  appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Shut down the ratings agencies

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 29/03/2020 - 12:12am in

Remember Friday Night Is Downgrade Night, from the Eurozone crisis? It's back. Last night, Fitch Ratings downgraded the UK to AA-, negative outlook. Here's their rationale:

The downgrade reflects a significant weakening of the UK's public finances caused by the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak and a fiscal loosening stance that was instigated before the scale of the crisis became apparent. The downgrade also reflects the deep near-term damage to the UK economy caused by the coronavirus outbreak and the lingering uncertainty regarding the post-Brexit UK-EU trade relationship. The commensurate and necessary policy response to contain the COVID-19 outbreak will result in a sharp rise in general government deficit and debt ratios, leading to an acceleration in the deterioration of public finance metrics over the medium term.

The Negative Outlook reflects our view that reversing the deterioration in the fiscal metrics beyond 2020 will not be a political priority for the UK government. Moreover, uncertainty around the future trade relationship with the EU could constrain the strength of the post-crisis economic recovery.

For some reason, Fitch thinks that making it more expensive for the UK to finance the necessary fiscal expansion to survive the virus without destroying the economy is a good idea. Presumably it will apply the same logic to other sovereigns in due course. The UK, of course, is a major reserve currency issuer, and its central bank has already indicated that it will do everything necessary to support the Government's actions. But other sovereigns don't have this security.

I well remember the cascading downgrades that wrecked the economy of Greece and frightened other sovereigns, including the UK, into imposing unnecessary and harmful austerity - austerity that is in large measure the reason why we are so ill-prepared now for this pandemic. The message from Fitch is clear. It is threatening sovereigns with a repetition of those cascading downgrades if they dare to spend the money needed to deal with a public health crisis.

Fitch is not the only one. Simultaneously, Moody's downgraded South Africa, on similar grounds. Moody's is also on a mission to downgrade corporate and institutional debt. Swathes of it. Including, for heaven's sake, hospitals:

Downgrading a hospital in the middle of a pandemic is downright immoral. And how in God's name it is sensible to make corporations whose cash flows are evaporating pay more for their debt is beyond me. Have these agencies no sense?

To be fair, we already knew they had no sense and no morals. After all, before the last crisis, they were paid to misprice the risks of toxic securities. And since that crisis, they have forced countries to shred safety nets, underfund healthcare systems, and leave millions without the means to survive a sudden economic collapse. They are the architects of this disaster, just as they were of the previous one.

These ghouls serve no useful social purpose. Shut them down now, before they do any more damage.

Related reading:

Modern gods and human sacrifice

Image from Investopedia

A Short Comment on the UK Government’s Fiscal Policy in the Current Crisis

By Phil Armstrong, University of Southampton Solent and York College.

Man putting on protective mask and wearing latex glovesImage by Terri Sharp from Pixabay

The UK government’s significant fiscal expansion – in line with its ‘do whatever is required’[1] mantra – is, of course, welcome. However, I would argue that it is still far too small to deal with the massive demand shock associated with the coronavirus pandemic (Mitchell 2020a, 2020b) and also that it is incorrectly targeted. It pays insufficient attention to the poorest groups in society; the government has failed to take the necessary steps required to ensure the income of those most in need is adequately supported during the crisis. Clearly, the situation is evolving on a daily basis and, looking forward, it is highly likely that there will be continual calls for the government to increase its fiscal intervention from many sectors in society – not least business leaders who fear the effects of rapidly declining demand.

However, I would stress that the intervention is being enacted against an inapplicable theoretical and ideological backdrop, specifically the mistaken neoliberal framing of the so-called ‘government budget constraint’ (GBC). The logic of the GBC conceptualises the government as a currency-user, which might finance its spending by taxation, by borrowing (debt issuance) or ‘printing money’ (Mitchell 2011). According to mainstream thinking, each of these methods carries problems; increased taxation reduces non-government sector spending power and allegedly generates disincentive effects, ‘excessive’ borrowing leads to higher long term interest rates, in turn, causing ‘crowding out’[2] and ‘money printing’ inevitably results in inflation.   There is also an underlying ideology implicit in neoliberalism; that state expansion soaks up real resources which would be better (or ‘more efficiently’) used by the private sector.

In extremis, it appears that the Conservatives (who have shown a marked distaste for expansionist state intervention in the recent past) and even business leaders who would normally be opposed to increased government spending and enlarged deficits are now prepared to put their weight behind the fiscal expansion[3]. However, the underlying framing based upon the GBC is likely to come back to bite us all – hard – in the future. In line with the erroneous conceptualisation of the state as a currency-user, the government is presenting its current additional spending as being ‘financed’ by borrowing. The story is founded upon the idea that the government needs to spend significant extra sums now – owing to the severity of the crisis – and heavy borrowing is, therefore, essential (reinforced with the contention that it is cheaper for the state to borrow now than in the past as long term interest rates are very low) in the manner of household who accepts a very large credit card bill because there is no other way it can survive[4].

However, following this line of thinking will lead to a damaging and erroneous conclusion. It is highly likely that in the future – when the crisis has passed – mainstream economists will argue that there is a financial ‘mess’ to fix; ‘unacceptably’ large public sector deficits may well persist beyond the crisis alongside an ‘excessive’ national debt as a proportion of GDP. The narrative will then, no doubt, suggest that they need to be ‘dealt with’– possibly with another, even harsher, round of austerity than last time – and it will those least able to cope who are most likely to be the ones asked to bear the greatest share of the burden (as was the case the last time austerity was imposed).

This conceptualisation of the government as a currency-user suggests that money printing and bond issuance are alternative ways of financing a deficit, however, advocates of MMT conceptualise the state as a currency-issuer. From this viewpoint, in reality, they are not alternatives.  The government always spends by the creation of new money – both taxes and borrowing logically and historically follow spending (or lending). Only money that has already been issued by the state can be collected in taxes or used to buy state debt. When the government spends, it does so by crediting the bank accounts of its target recipients, simultaneously increasing the target’s bank’s reserve account by the same amount. When taxes are paid by a private sector agent, her deposit balance falls and her bank’s reserve account balance at the central bank (CB) is correspondingly marked down[5].  The purchase of government debt is best conceptualised as a reserve drain (Mosler 2012) which changes the composition of non-government sector holding of risk-free state debt but not its size.

I would argue that having this correct conceptualisation is the key to avoiding the return of austerity. In reality, the government sets its aims, determines its budget and spends by the ex nihilo creation of new money. When the operational reality of the financial system is correctly understood, then the expectation of a post-crisis ‘mess’ to fix disappears. Once the economy has recovered, that does not necessarily mean a need for austerity or even fiscal retrenchment – only the post-crisis economic outcomes such as growth, employment and price stability matter. If unemployment persists after the crisis has passed, then government net spending should still be regarded as being too low, irrespective of the size of the government deficit both in absolute terms and as a proportion of national income. Only in an economy suffering from inflation from excess demand would fiscal contraction be required.

These are challenging times for us all, but in the current crisis we have the opportunity to push forward the insights of MMT and to challenge established thought – particularly with respect to the inapplicable government budget constraint. If our understanding of the operational reality of the monetary system can be characterised by the insights of MMT, the full scope of existing fiscal space can be understood and importantly, the likely post-crisis push for fiscal retrenchment can be effectively countered.

 

[1] See Islam (2020).

[2] The crowding hypothesis is based on the contention that higher interest rates will lead to lower private sector investment, meaning that large government deficits effectively ‘crowd out’ private investment. Little, if any, empirical support for this hypothesis exists (Armstrong 2015).

[3] For example, Richard Branson expressed his support for fiscal retrenchment in 2010 (Stratton 2010) but changed his mind in 2020 when arguing in favour of a £7.5 billion government support package for the airline industry (Hockaday 2020).

[4]  ‘We are in an entirely new world. A wartime effort, with wartime deficits to cover it’, Rishi Sunak, quoted in Islam, F., BBC News online, 17 March 2020.

[5] It is important to stress that private sector debt or bank money cannot provide the final means of settling a tax bill which occurs when a taxpayer’s bank’s reserve account at the central bank is debited in favour of the Treasury account (Armstrong 2019).

 

References

 

Armstrong, P. (2015), ‘Heterodox Views of Money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)’

https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Money-and-MMT.pdf

 

Armstrong, P. (2019), ‘A simple MMT advocate’s response to the Gavyn Davies article ‘What you need to know about modern monetary theory’, Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies,

https://gimms.org.uk/2019/05/27/phil-armstrong-gavyn-davies-response

 

Hockaday, J. (2020), ‘Airline bosses to ask for £7,500,000,000 bailout to survive coronavirus.

The Metro online, https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/14/airline-bosses-ask-7500000000-bailout-survive-coronavirus-12399300/

 

Islam, F (2020), ‘Coronavirus: Chancellor unveils £350bn lifeline for economy’, BBC News online, 17 March, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51935467

 

Mitchell, W. (2011), ‘Budget Deficit Basics’ 4 April

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14044

 

Mitchell, W. (2020a), ‘The coronavirus crisis – a particular type of shock – Part 1’, March 10,

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44484

 

Mitchell, W. (2020b), ‘The coronavirus crisis – a particular type of shock – Part 2’, March 11,

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44488

 

Mosler, W. (2012), Soft Currency Economics II, US Virgin Islands: Valance

 

Stratton, A (2010), ‘Richard Branson backs Tory plans to cut spending sooner rather than later’, The Guardian, 16 February,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/16/branson-back-tory-deficit-cuts

 

 

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

Viber icon
Viber

The post A Short Comment on the UK Government’s Fiscal Policy in the Current Crisis appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

The NI Fund's reserves don't pay down the National Debt

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 14/01/2020 - 4:56am in


The NI Fund discussed in this post covers England, Wales and Scotland only. Northern Ireland has a separate NI Fund, which is excluded from the figures given in this post. However, it works in exactly the same way as the Fund discussed here. 

Sometimes the government is its own worst enemy. HM Treasury's hamfisted response to this Freedom of Information request from Trudy Baddams of the pension rights campaign group "We Paid In, You Paid Out", has caused a very silly storm.

Ms Baddams asked this question:

Can you confirm that the National Insurance Fund (NIF) is presently in surplus and by how much? Can you also please confirm how much has been paid from the fund into the National Insurance Investment Fund in the last 10 years?

In response, HM Treasury pointed her to the NIF accounts, which are produced yearly. But then it added this paragraph (my emphasis):

The latest NIF Accounts show that the balance of the NIF increased by £2,286,469,000 in 2017-18. In addition to the previous balance, this resulted in a closing balance of £24,221,220,000, which was paid into the NIF Investment Account and, in practice, used to reduce the national debt.

This final statement (highlighted) was seized upon by opponents of women's state pension age rises as evidence that women born in the 1950s were being deprived of their pensions because of government mismanagement or even downright fraud. Since then, numerous articles, blogposts, tweets and Facebook posts have insisted, sometimes hysterically, that the NIF has been "plundered" by successive governments to "pay off the national debt", and that women were "robbed" of their pensions to plug the gap.

The independent fact checking organisation Full Fact attempted to debunk the claim that the NIF was being used to pay down the National Debt. But its conclusion unfortunately reiterated HM Treasury's confusing statement:

Claim: National Insurance Contributions are being used to reduce the national debt. 

Conclusion: Some are. This doesn’t mean anyone isn’t getting paid what they’re currently due in pensions or benefits—the UK government invests the NICs that don’t go towards paying pensions and benefits on reducing the national debt.

Oh dear.

Full Fact then muddied the waters still more by discussing the slightly incestuous relationship between the NIF and general taxation (of which more shortly) and the NIF's looming insolvency. This was to my mind unnecessary and only increased the confusion. Poor effort, Full Fact. Not up to your usual standard.

Before I dive into the misleading FOI response myself, let me first debunk two contradictory myths, both of which are widely believed (often, bizarrely, by the same people):

  • The NIF is a pension fund whose assets have been raided by the Government
  • NI contributions go into a general pot and are used for whatever purpose the Government wants

Both of these are untrue.

Firstly, the NIF is not, and never has been, a pension fund. It does not have "assets under management" belonging to contributors and invested for a future return. It is a clearing house which receives NI contributions (net of a 20% contribution to the NHS) and immediately disburses them to state pensioners and other beneficiaries. Thus the NI contributions of working people pay the pensions and benefits of people who are unable to work due to old age, sickness, unemployment or maternity: in their turn, when those who have previously paid NI become unable to work, their pensions and benefits are paid from the NI contributions of other people. NI contributions are not in any sense "savings". They are more correctly regarded as tax.

However, although they are tax, NI contributions do not go into the general "pot" of government funds. The NIF is ring-fenced for the payment of certain welfare benefits including the state pension. The full list of benefits paid from the NIF is here. Nothing else can legally be paid from it.

Despite repeated claims from campaigners that the NIF has been used to, inter alia, bail out banks, bribe Tory fat cats, finance wars, fund space programs in developing countries, provide housing for immigrants, give generous benefits to idle young people and pay off the national debt, there is zero evidence that the NIF has ever paid for anything other than the things it is legally required to fund. The accounts show that the single biggest item of expenditure from the NI Fund - by far - is the state pension, which swallows up almost all NI contributions, leaving virtually nothing for other benefits. If it were not for the rises in state pension age and the ending of SERPS/S2P in 2016, the NIF would now be insolvent.

That said, the amount of state pension and benefits paid out does not depend on NI receipts, but on Government policy as agreed by Parliament. The Government guarantees to maintain pensions and benefit payments at the agreed levels even if NI receipts fall. To ensure that as far as possible the NI Fund can meet its obligations without Government help, the NIF is legally obliged to keep reserves amounting to a minimum of 1/6 of outgoings. The "surplus" to which Trudy Baddams alludes in her FOI request is made up of these "statutory reserves" plus accumulated yearly excesses of receipts over income (if any).

Obviously, if outgoings exceed income - as they typically do in recessions - reserves fall. If the NIF's reserves fall below the statutory minimum, the Government tops them up from general taxation. Between 2014 and 2016, it provided a total of £14.2bn to the NIF to rebuild its reserves, which had been depleted by the deep recession of 2008-9, the slow recovery and a sharply rising number of pensioners due to longevity increases and baby boomer retirements. So, far from "raiding" the NIF, the Government actually bailed it out.

Since then, the NIF's finances have improved, though without the Government's bailout its reserves would still be below the statutory minimum. In the tax year ending 31st March 2019, the NIF's income exceeded its expenditure by £5.7bn, raising its total reserves from £24.2bn at the time of the FOI response to £29.3bn. And this brings me to that sentence in the FOI response.

The sentence is correct to say that the way these reserves are managed has the effect of reducing the national debt. But this does not mean that the reserves are being diverted to "pay down" the existing national debt. Rather, it means that their existence enables the government to borrow £29.3bn less than it otherwise would need.

This has not always been the case. Prior to 2007, the NIF's reserves were invested in existing gilt-edged securities (government debt), which is the safest and most liquid sterling investment available in the marketplace. This was rather like the Bank of England's QE: the NIF owned government debt, but the debt still existed. This meant that although the reserves were effectively borrowed by the government to fund other spending, the total stock of government debt did not reduce.

However, in 2007 the Government moved the NIF's reserves into an Investment Account at the Debt Management Office (DMO). The DMO is the Government's internal bank, responsible for issuing government debt, accepting tax receipts and other income, and managing the government's financial balances. The NIF's Investment Account is one of several accounts managed by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CNRD), which is part of the DMO.

The NIF's Investment Account is similar to an "instant access" bank savings account. The DMO pays interest on the account, which forms part of the NIF's income: in 2018-19, interest paid by the DMO on the investment account was £178.4m. The funds are "on demand" and can be withdrawn by the NIF at any time.

Like any other bank, the DMO uses deposits to fund its lending and spending. Doing so reduces its need to issue public debt. The NIF's reserves thus reduce the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR). In this sense, they can be viewed as "reducing the national debt". But this does not mean the funds are being "diverted" to other purposes. They are simply being lent out for a return. As the House of Commons briefing paper on National Insurance contributions explains:

It is worth emphasizing that these funds are being held in this account on loan… there is no question of the Government being in a position to use this facility to extract money from the Fund as an extra source of revenue.

The NIF can draw on its reserves to meet its obligations, just as you or I can draw on our "rainy day" savings if our boiler breaks down or our income isn't quite enough to cover Christmas. When the NIF does this, the DMO covers the gap by issuing more public debt. Thus, when the NIF draws on its reserves, or its reserves fall below the statutory minimum, public debt rises. And this brings me to my conclusion.

There have been various proposals to pay 1950s-born women some form of compensation for state pension age rises. Many of the proposals involve paying out some or all of the NIF's reserves. But those reserves are legally required as a buffer against short-term variations in income and outgoings. If they were paid out to 1950s-born women, they would have to be topped up from general taxation. Therefore, if the the NIF's reserves were used to pay compensation to 1950s women, public debt would rise.

Whether 1950s-born women should be compensated for their state pension age rises is a political question that I do not propose to address here, though my views on the subject are well known. But there is a desperate need for honesty about the cost. There is no solution to the WASPI problem that doesn't involve much higher public debt. The campaigners have to make the case for this being a price worth paying. I'm afraid the election result shows that so far, they have failed to make that case.

Related reading:

The real victims of the "Rape of the National Insurance Fund"
The Fund that isn't a fund
Dangerous assumptions and dodgy maths
The past, present and (uncertain) future of a Government pension scheme - Forbes
The Myths and Legends of Hypothecated National Insurance - GIMMS

#RethinkMoney – The Greatest Lie Ever Told (Probably)…#TaxAndSpend

GIMMS is delighted to have permission from blogger Duncan Poundcake to reblog his article which was originally posted here

 

So what have we learned from the General Election of 2019?

Mainly the familiar cry of:

”How will you pay for it?”

”Labour ‘broke the bank”…

”Labour left a note saying  – We have spent all the money”…

Nothing very new in that. We have heard it on a loop for nearly 10 years from many Politicians. Policy Makers, Think Tanks, Economists, The Press and RW influencers, that:

  • For Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) to spend is a very bad thing to do.
  • HMG is at the largesse of the Tax Payer and is unable to spend for public purpose. HMG must either – a: Tax and/or b: Borrow before it spends.

Why?

  • There is an undefined and finite amount of Sterling that can ever be available in the economy.
  • Once this Sterling threshold has been reached, HMG must borrow back this Sterling from the private sector, to fund its spending.

Even Labour, with its £400bn spending bill, tells us; Tax, Borrow and Spend is the order of the day.

Unfortunately, yet again, Labour miss an opportunity and tell us the polar opposite of the reality…

1. The UK has ALWAYS been a Sovereign Fiat Currency Issuer

HMG has ALWAYS been able to create £s at will but there have been numerous times where, by circumstance, or design, it has been limited as to how many Fiat £s it can create.

Since 1971, the UK has been a Sovereign Fiat Currency Issuer, without restriction – In laymans language, HMG:

  • Has the legal monopoly on the creation (Issue) of its OWN currency.
  • Can create (Issue) Sterling at will, from thin air, with zero impedance.
  • Everyone else is a Currency User.

So why does everyone tell you otherwise?

Time to travel in the Monetary TARDIS…

2. A little bit of History repeating – The Gold Standard (Again):

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

 

Over much of the 20th Century, the UK, US and other developed nations have been on and off variations of the ‘Gold Standard’.
In stark comparison to the economics of the last 40 years, when the Americans and British created ‘The Gold Exchange Standard in 1944’, their focus was:

  • To avoid trade deals which impoverished lesser trade partners.
  • An attempt to control flows of speculative financial capital.

The latter, in particular, had wrecked the global economy prior to the Great Depression, the outcome of which was seared into their collective memories:

  • A global depression,
  • Mass unemployment.
  • The rise of Fascism in Europe and Communism as a response.
  • Global War.
  • Millions Dead.

Post-War planners aimed to prevent the repetition of previous competitive currency devaluations but engineered not to force debtor nations to reduce their industrial bases to attract financial speculators and keep interest rates high.

British economic sage, John Maynard Keynes…

John Maynard Keynes portrait© National Portrait Gallery, London
Image cropped from John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes of Tilton; Lydia Lopokova by Walter Benington, for Elliott & Fry bromide print, 1920s Given by Bassano & Vandyk Studios, 1974 Photographs Collection NPG x90117

again fearful of repeating the mistakes that led to Great Depression and carnage that followed, was the primary mover behind Britain’s proposal that Trade Surplus nations should be forced to use their trade surplus for good, or lose it for good:

  • Either import from debtor nations
  • Build factories in debtor nations
  • Donate to debtor nations.

The U.S. opposed Keynes’ plan and proposed creating the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with enough financial clout to counteract destabilising flows of speculative finance. However, in contrast to the modern IMF, the fund would counteract these speculative flows automatically, no political strings or agendas. An honest broker.

History demonstrates that on almost every point where the USA objected, Keynes was to be proved right.

3. Bretton Woods… 

The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., addresses the delegates to the Bretton Woods Monetary Conference, July 8, 1944The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., addresses the delegates to the Bretton Woods Monetary Conference, July 8, 1944 (Credit: U.S. Office of War Information in the National Archives).

 

In 1944, at Bretton Woods, the Allies met to plan a Post-War world and as a result of the collective conventional wisdom of the time, the Allied nations preferred to do this by regulating a system of fixed exchange rates, indirectly disciplined, by binding the USD to Gold at a fixed price per ounce.
This  system relied on a regulated market economy with:

  • Strict controls on the values of currencies.
  • Flows of speculative international finance would be stopped by channelling them through Central Banks. #Capital Controls
  • The intention being to direct international flows of investment.
  • The focus on using capital to building useful things that created jobs or benefited the public purpose, rather than financial speculation on the markets.

Interestingly, it was US planners who coined the phrase ‘Economic Security’, surmising that a liberal international economic system would enhance post-war peace and keep Communism at bay. This came from a belief, that causes of both World Wars, was ‘Economic Discrimination’ and trade wars. The main culprits being trade and exchange controls of Nazi Germany and the ‘Imperial Preference System’, where members, or former, of the British Empire were given special trade status, resulting in a German, French, and American protectionist policies.

*US Planners were shrewd enough to recognise that to keep Capitalism popular, taxpayers and workers, needed to see a benefit from it and to feel their lives being improved, rather than risk the alternative, Communism. To ensure this, regulated Capitalism was the solution and the irony is, we have the Cold War to thank for this Golden Age.*

In stark contrast to today, Bretton Woods participants agreed that a liberal international economic system ALSO required governmental intervention.

Following the economic turmoil of the 1930s, the management of economies had become the main activity of governments, taking on increasing responsibility for the economic well-being of its citizens. This had proved to be largely successful and popular. Employment, stability, and growth were the order of the day. In turn, the role of government in the national economy would continue. The Welfare State, which grew out of the Great Depression, had created a popular appetite for governmental intervention in the economy, and it was Keynes who made it clear that Government intervention was required to counter market failures.

Enter the era of State Capitalism…

Members of the Gold Standard agreed to closely regulate the production of their currencies to maintain fixed exchange rates, with a bit of wiggle room either side. The express aim being to make international trade easier. This was the foundation of the U.S. vision of a post-war world, Free Trade:

  • Lowering tariffs
  • Maintaining a balance of trade via fixed exchange rates that assists Capitalism.
  • Reduce trade and capital flows.
  • Revive the Gold Standard (Again) using USD as the world’s reserve currency.
  • Prevent Governments messing around with their currency supply, as they had between the wars.
  • Governments would be required to monitor the production of their currency and would refrain from manipulating its price.

4. Tax & Spend & Borrowing…

It is important at this point, to remind ourselves, HMG was still a Fiat Currency issuer but, up until 1971, had voluntarily limited its ability to created its own currency.

So following Bretton Woods, from 1944 until 1971, Gold was ‘Convertible On Demand’ into Sterling. This required HMG to have lots of Gold stashed away at the Bank of England (BoE) just in case anyone wanted to convert their pot of Gold into Sterling. Indeed, once upon a time, you could walk into the Bank of England with Gold and they were obliged to accept it and pay you cash.

Like all liabilities, it was worked out on risk. HMG surmised that only a small percentage of the public would ever demand their gold to be converted into Sterling, at any given time, so it only had to have a limited amount of Gold in reserve, just-in-case. Fractional Gold Reserve Central Banking, if you will.

However, because of the rules of the Gold Standard, HMG Currency Issuing (Spending) would be constrained by the amount of gold in the BoE vault.

The other issue HMG was acutely aware of, was spending Sterling for Public Purpose was in reality, spending the Gold it had in the BoE. The Gold never left the BoE but with a promise of convertibility into £s:

  • Limited how many £s could be spent at any one time
  • How many £s cash could be spent at any one time was…dictated by how much Gold it had in reserve.

So if HMG wanted spend more, it had to:

  • Find more Gold to allow it to create more Fiat £s to
  • Or, recoup Fiat £s from the private sector i.e: TAXPAYERS – BEFORE it could spend more. Welcome to…‘Tax and to Spend’.

Now to protect all that Gold in the BoE from a profligate Government, just creating Fiat £s to spend, they had a few tricks up their sleeve…

How could a Sovereign Currency Issuing Government, such as HMG with a self-imposed brake (The Gold Standard) on how many £s it can create and issue, spend more £s than it was allowed to create?

The Solution?

BORROWING BACK Fiat £s from the taxpayers’ savings – to spend again – rather than creating and issuing additional new Fiat £s, which might exceed the back-up supply of Gold. The plan being:

  • Why not get taxpayers to exchange their £s savings, for Sovereign Gilts, Treasury Bonds OR similar, that pay interest.
  • Taxpayers still get to benefit from the HMGs spending MORE £s each year than it intends to collect back in tax. Thus allowing taxpayers to continue to build their wealth of £s.

ERNIE

*One ingenious demonstration of this, was the infamous ‘ERNIE’, invented by a Bletchley Park codebreaker in 1956 and Premium Bonds, offering taxpayers another way to save outside of banks or building societies. Which of course, was not its main purpose. Premium Bonds were just another way to recoup £ from taxpayers, without actually Taxing. Recycled Money.*

 

And this is exactly how HMG ran Government spending up until the point Richard Nixon suspended US involvement in the Gold Standard in 1971 – due to the spiraling cost of the Vietnam War. US Government spending was outstripping its Gold Supply – and became a Sovereign Fiat Currency Issuer, without restriction.

*As Keynes had predicted in 1944, eventually the USA found itself in the inherent paradox of the Gold Standard:

1. It was required to be the Worlds Reserve Currency and as per the Bretton Woods agreement, keep USD flowing outwards to keep global trade moving.

2. However, this put a restraint on its ability to spend inwards, domestically.

A large percentage of its Gold Reserves had to be set aside to cover outward flows of USDs, restricting  USDs available to be created for domestic Public Purpose – which at the time of Nixon was Johnson’s: ‘The Great Society’ project.

Between 1944 – 1971, the US saw its stash of total world Gold Reserves shrink from 65% to 22%. The market speculated that the US has so many USD out in circulation, it was unable to convert USD to Gold, due to these dwindling Gold Reserves. The dollar depreciated. Inflation went up, employment followed suite and due to the spending spiraling requirements of the Vietnam War, Nixon saw the solution as suspending convertibility to Gold and to go 100% Fiat. No restrictions to USD creation.*   

The Gold Standard was effectively dead. The US now no longer converted USD into Gold and other nations bailed out in 1973. The Gold Standard was officially buried in 1976. The UK followed suit. However, the system for creating and issuing HMG money, DID NOT CHANGE and as I write, in 2019 nearly 50 years later, the Government still operates its finances as if it were on the Gold Standard:

  • So the HMG continues to sell Gilts, Treasury Bonds, Premium Bonds
  • So it can ‘borrow back’ £s from taxpayers
  • To spend MORE than it collected in taxation.

The one upside of this was/is a form of Corporate Welfare exchanging £s for Government IOUs, with the interest received, adding to private savings and wealth.

So we have ended up where the reality of Money Creation since 1971, is that HMG is not revenue constrained when it comes to spending for Public Purpose but continues to use a Monetary system that claims to be still on the Gold Standard.

To reiterate, for clarity, Her Majesty’s Government:

1. Is No Longer on the Gold Standard.

2. Is Not required to convert £s into any commodity to spend.

3. Is Not required to use taxpayers £s to spend.

4. Does not need to borrow or recoup Taxpayers £s savings to spend.

Yet, NO Government since 1971, has changed the from Gold Standard System to reflect the powers of a Fiat Currency Issuer. So HMG continues to tell us that it needs to:

  • Sell Gilts, Treasury Bonds. Premium Bonds, The Lottery etc.
  • Use the proceeds – Taxpayers’ Private Savings & Wealth to allow it to spend more than it collects in Taxes.

Now the rub with this is the interest, or payouts HMG needs to make to holders of these, all of which is added to the National Debt. So to pay for this, the Government needs to issue even MORE Gilts & Treasury Bonds etc. to cover the interest payments. Ad Infinitum…

HOWEVER…

A quick reality check via Quantitative Easing (QE) has shown us, if you are lucky enough to have owned £454bn of Gilts and Corporate Bonds, HMG bought from you, then you have become very rich indeed…unlike HMG which is falling ever deeper into debt.

Which is a complete MYTH and has created 50 years of confusion and a convenient smokescreen for those who see Government as a problem.

Even the BoE concurs: “Read my lips. No new taxes”…Does the Bank of England print money? – YouTube

5. Enter, Stage Right…AUSTERITY:

Now if you believe all this unwittingly, or otherwise, there is a logic in thinking that an ever-increasing National Debt is unsustainable and the ONLY solution is to REDUCE, substantially Government spending and to pay down the debt.

However, knowing that Gold Standard limitations no longer apply, the HMG has created a solution, to a problem that does not exist and ironically, created a further problem to the original one, which never existed in the first place. Think IMF Crisis, 1976.

The National Debt and the convoluted machinations of issuing ‘debt’ and accounting for it, as a brake to stop HMG from issuing more Fiat £s than it could guarantee with Gold, is a relic of history. Some would consider this insistence on clinging onto an economic fossil, to be stupidity, or perhaps a sign of something far more deliberate…

It is of course a legal requirement and not unreasonable, to expect HMG to keep a track of its spending. The much-vaunted DEFICIT:

1. The gap between £s out and £s in.

2. A balance sheet of the Fiat £s HMG has decided to spend into the economy but not redeemed in taxation.

When the HMG spends, this allows taxpayers to keep £s. When the Government reduces spending, this forces taxpayers to use their savings to spend and REDUCES private wealth. The less the Government pays for, the more you have to use your savings and income.

Repeat after me…AUSTERITY REDUCES PRIVATE WEALTH…

Questions to be answered…

1. If HMG fell out of the Gold Standard in 1971…

2. Which resulted in the £ no longer being required to be convertible to Gold…

3. Why do we still account for fiat government spending for public purpose as if we were on the Gold Standard?

4. Is it just welfare for taxpayers to exchange their fiat £s into Government Savings Instruments, that pay interest?

As QE has shown us, HMG Debt Instruments are not distributed equally across all taxpayers but are bought by a wealthy private and corporate elite.

Perhaps the most mind-blowing for taxpayers to get their head around is the ability for HMG to PAY OFF – at ANY TIME – the National Debt by purchasing all Debt Instruments in exchange for Fiat £s. Hello Japan…

So far from being ‘Fiscally Prudent’ by reducing the Deficit and running Government Finances like a household, only spending what is received in Taxation – the real-world outcome is to impoverish taxpayers and their well-being.

6. The solution?

A fundamental shift and an education of all taxpayers and the political establishment, to understand that:

As long as labour and sustainable resources are available, Government Spending is not only a good and positive but absolutely essential for the economy and the democratisation of wealth.

The ONLY limitations HMG has to spending for Public Purpose are:

1. The physical resources available.

2. The labour available.

3. Its own aspirations.

4. The taxpayers’ willingness to learn, deconstruct and the 1% and their cheerleaders across politics, the media and society who have used the confusion around Government Money Creation spending and taxing for the purpose of wealth extraction and power.

History demonstrates that the Tax and Spend myth, has resulted in dire and far-reaching consequences.

Roberts

In 1976, when HMG went to the IMF claiming to have ‘run out of money’ and in return for $2bn, Healey was required to introduce Austerity measures – which were a precursor to the economics of Margaret Thatcher – latterly Neo-Liberalism.

There was an alternative proposed some 3 years before, yet thanks to Wilson, Healy & Callaghan’s refusal to listen to Tony Benn, history unfolded the way it did and Healy capitulated to Hayek and his Neo-Liberals, who have spent the following 42 years capturing the state, media and democracy in the UK – and beyond – for their own benefit.

Oh and by the way, Britain never did go ‘Bust’, no matter what Mr Roberts writes…

 

 

 

 

Join our mailing list

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

 

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post #RethinkMoney – The Greatest Lie Ever Told (Probably)…#TaxAndSpend appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Which way from here? That depends on where we want to go. Our choices now will determine our future.

Sign on a fence with and arrow logo and the word votePhoto via PxHere

We are in the last few days of the election campaign. An election which, without doubt, will be a defining one for the future of this country and possibly even the planet. It will determine whether we carry on with the economic and political status quo or whether we choose a different path towards a socially just and fairer economic system which also addresses as a matter of priority the challenges posed to the future survival of our species.  Growing political unrest caused by the last forty years of market-driven dogma has created huge wealth inequalities and is driving dangerous right-wing populism worldwide.

This might be just a national election, but the world is watching. Where we put our X in the voting booth this time around will be crucial. It matters as never before.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote:

“For the duty of the truly democratic politician is just to see that people are not destitute; for destitution is the cause of deterioration of democracy’

Of course, he lived in a time very different to our own, but he believed that the best form of democracy was one with a more equal income distribution and that greater economic equality would increase the stability of the state and thus that of citizens.

The State has a crucial role to play in serving the public purpose or in other words creating the fundamental frameworks for a healthy society and economy which benefits everyone.  However, for the last forty and more years, economic power has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. This has been facilitated by successive governments whose policies have been informed by an ideologically based dogma of privatisation, deregulation and an emphasis on ‘sound finance’ which, over the last nine years, has been at the heart of Conservative austerity.

It has also been enabled by politicians who have acted less in the service of the nation and more in the interests of corporations and excessively wealthy people who have influenced government policies in their favour through a network of lobbying and special advisors. Democracy has been undermined by those with the power and wealth to influence politicians and a media which continues to play a huge role in that subversion.

The ideological premise of trickle-down has been that the rich are the wealth creators, that tax cuts encourage investment in the economy and jobs which benefit working people and then, in their turn, brings in taxes to pay for our public services. We have been deceived with the lie trotted out over the years and even during this election campaign by Conservative ministers and even some on the progressive left that our public services are dependent on bringing in tax revenue. When in fact it is quite the reverse.

A healthy economy and all that means, from citizens having access to good education, quality healthcare and a protective welfare system, (not to mention other vital public services or businesses which rely on access to an educated and healthy workforce and the physical infrastructure for their businesses to flourish) depends on a government which has made a political decision to invest sufficiently in that public and social infrastructure to benefit both today’s and tomorrow’s citizens. It does not depend on a government checking on whether there is enough in the public purse to do so.

For well over a year now, GIMMS has charted the consequences of austerity in its MMT blogs. Yet, now we are now witnessing on a daily basis, like never before, its damaging effects on the very foundations of economic and social life.

Economic data published last month showed that the services sector slowed in the last quarter and the manufacturing and construction sectors contracted in November. The economy just avoided recession, with the weakest growth in a decade.  Whilst clearly the uncertainty over Brexit will have played a part, cuts in government spending over the last 9 years will have also played a significant role as businesses lose investment confidence and households tighten their belts due to rising household debt.

A study published by the Office for National Statistics on 5th December 2019 found that whilst Britain’s total wealth grew by 13% between 2016 and 2018, the wealth of the richest 10% increased four times faster than those of the poorest 10%. It also found that the poorest 10% of households had debts three times larger than their assets, compared with the richest 10% who have accumulated a stash of wealth which was 35 times larger than their total debts. The Wealth and Assets Survey carried out by the ONS also showed that in 2018 the top 10% finished up with 45% of national wealth while the poorest 10% held just 2%.

The shocking data underlines the growing wealth divide. A divide between those at the top who barely noticed the 2008 Global Financial Crash (or indeed profited from it) and those on low incomes whose real earnings have barely risen since the crash and who have seen their economic share of productivity decrease over decades. The very people who have paid the real price for austerity have, in fact, suffered a double whammy.  They not only are facing an enormous and increasing burden of household debt (putting huge stress on their finances exacerbated for those on low incomes and in precarious employment), but they are also reaping the consequences of brutal cuts to the public service sector.

Huge inequalities that have arisen as a result of the pursuit of this pernicious market-focused ideology along with a deceitful balanced public accounts narrative have not only driven a steam roller through our public services and vital welfare systems but have also impoverished millions leaving them floundering in insecure and low paid employment.

In the week that the Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson apologised for backing the Coalition’s austerity policies during the Coalition years and whose economic spokesman claimed in a speech very recently that they are the only party of ‘sound finance’ (which sounds very much like more of the same), the news has been ever more damning about its consequences for the lives of working people, families, children and the elderly and our public infrastructure.

Shelter’s ‘Generational Homeless’ report found that a child becomes homeless every eight minutes; that’s 183 children losing their homes every day. It found that at least 135,000 children will be living in temporary accommodation on Christmas day.

‘Life in a B&B is horrible. There’s no room to do anything. I’ve been told off … for running in the small corridor. You can’t do much, you can’t play much. I don’t get to play that much. Sometimes me and my little brother Harry fight for the one chair because we both want to sit at the table. I find it really hard to do my homework’ says Will whose family was made homeless and now lives in a single room in a bed and breakfast in Ilford.

A leading charity Action for Children warned this week that some of the youngest children are facing a childhood crisis as almost one million under 10s from low-income families face a bleak Christmas lacking basics such as a heated home, warm winter coat or fresh food.

Research from the charity shows that after a decade of austerity and ongoing problems with universal credit, parents below the breadline are able to spend just £2 a day per child on food and struggle to afford nutritious food which is vital for their health and development.

The Dispatches programme ‘Growing up Poor; Britain’s breadline kids’ which aired on Channel 4 earlier this week exemplified the shocking poverty that exists in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Children sleeping in their coats in the middle of winter because they can’t afford heating; parents counting the pennies to see if there is enough money to feed the meter; a family living in Cambridge surviving on £5 a day in a wealthy city that houses eight of the 2000 food banks that have been set up across the UK in the last decade to alleviate hunger; and a teenager Danielle who is studying for her GCEs and self-harming housed with her family in a bedsit, with no savings and relying on a local soup kitchen and food bank to survive.

This is happening in 21st century Britain and yet it feels like we are being transported in Dr Who’s Tardis back to the streets of Dickensian times.  Our children are being denied a future by a government which has put balancing the public accounts above the health of the nation, its children who represent the future and the environment upon which they will depend for their survival.

At a hustings last week, the Conservative MP John Whittingdale was applauded by the audience when he claimed that Labour had left the economy in a perilous state and close to bankruptcy. Perpetuating the lie that austerity had been necessary to get the public finances in order, he said that careful economic management by the Conservatives meant that they could now spend on the NHS, policing and education. No acknowledgement was made about the damage that austerity had caused to our public services; those on low incomes and in insecure working; the huge rise in homelessness or the 73% increase in supplies being distributed in the 2000 food banks across the UK; the increasing numbers of hospital admissions for scurvy, vitamin D deficiency and other maladies associated with economy inequality and child food poverty; and no mention of the systemic problems with welfare reforms and the introduction of Universal Credit, along with a punitive assessment system which have led to many deaths.

We must continue to challenge the false assumptions about how modern monetary systems operate and demonstrate to the public that contrary to common belief government spending is not constrained by monetary resources.

Tackling existing and future inequality and saving the planet will not be constrained by the state of the public accounts or the national debt or whether government can raise sufficient tax or borrow on the markets but rather how it will manage the finite resources it has at its disposal to create the public frameworks and infrastructure to sustain a healthy economy and environment.

It is both a moral question about how a civilised nation should behave towards its neighbours near or far and how we organise our societies to create the optimum environment for all to live with dignity and without fear.

It is regrettable that creating fear and hate has been the modus operandi of governments, extreme political movements and the press. Without a fundamental shift in our attitudes we cannot hope to make the radical changes we need to create a fairer society and more importantly to survive.  A challenge to the political and economic status quo is vital if we care about our children’s future and that of many others around the world.

To reiterate the final paragraph in last week’s MMT Lens:

What are we so afraid of? A better future for our children? A more sustainable and fairer economy for all? Indeed, a planet for us to live and breathe on? What is not to like?

 

Join our mailing list

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

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post Which way from here? That depends on where we want to go. Our choices now will determine our future. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.