Skip to main content

A bit more on the financial position

Consituents remain interested in the situation for the country hence I am going to repost and update a posting I made on 23rd July (on The Stirrer forum).

The financial crisis had really four components. Three were international and one national. The international ones were

1. CDOs (the credit crunch issue - causing a big hole in banks' balance sheets). This is the issue that causes all the fuss about banks and bonuses as people were basically making money out of thin air. This is also the mistake of the ratings agencies.

2. The illiquidity of the land market and associated bubble. This has a cycle that is often international, but can be local (as was the case in Sweden). That has a knock on effect on the capital of lending institutions. It runs on about a 15 year cycle with the previous periods being 89-92 and the mid 1970s. Because it ran for slightly longer the fall back was higher.

3. Oil prices. Jumps in oil prices cause recessions. Energy affects economic activity. The calculation as to how much energy is needed for each pound of GDP is called the energy intensity of GDP.

Then nationally there is the question as to how "prudent" the government is with the public finances.

What is interesting in this situation is that the varying policy responses in different countries can to some extent be tested against each other.

You can see in this that Labour's strategy placed the UK in the same category as Ireland, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain rather than France and Germany.

The bank customer rescue (which did not bail out the owners of the banks viz the shareholders) was an international requirement although it raises questions about the comparative merits of bank regulation.

Then you have various demand management measures.

The big mistake people think in considering the coalition's policy is to think that in some ways it is not neo Keynsian. The proposals are to reduce the deficit, not to pay back debt. The objective is to ensure confidence in the government's (UK's) solvency. That is necessary to keep interest rates down. Ireland is having to issue debt at about 5.5% at the moment. Our 10 year rate is more like 3.5%.

On a trillion pounds of debt that difference in interest rate is £20 bn a year. A big sum to find from the cuts that Labour would be forced to bring in as a result of their having lower market confidence.

It is important that people remember that having a higher deficit also leads to higher interest rates not just a higher principal upon which interest is calculated.

In terms of the ideological "size of the state" issue. Government spending at the end of the cuts will be around the same as at the end of Tony Blair's government in 2007. I haven't managed to get the precise figures on this, but will at some stage.

Hence the govenment's financial strategy is simply a rational approach to deal with reality not an ideological drive towards a smaller state.

To be fair to Alistair Darling it appears from Mandelson's memoirs that he understands this.

Hence it is quite clear that Labour's financial strategy would result in greater cuts to public services than will be implemented by the coalition government.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…