One oddity of the global economic slowdown is that many companies and individuals continue to over-indulge while others, such as Marconi, are on the brink of collapse. Thus Marconi's biggest customer, British Telecommunications, is still capable of the kind of corporate flatulence that only a rich diet of consultants' confections can induce.

I refer to its rebranding of an assortment of European mobile phone businesses under the "lifestyle" name of "O2" (I suppose breathing oxygen is the sine qua non of any lifestyle). The great thing about this name, according to BT, is that it is equally vacuous in all languages. Isn't globalisation wonderful?

Anyway, BT is spending millions on developing and promoting O2. Yet whenever I talk to its executives, I am habitually lectured about the despicable British Chancellor who has brought them to the brink of financial collapse. His crime, they allege, was to initiate auctions of the radio spectrum throughout the EU. The telecoms companies wanted to acquire the new transmission rights so they could offer "next-generation" or 3G mobile services (which will include, inter alia, a "personal location facility" to tell you, whether you are on the Great Wall of China or in East Cheam, where to find your nearest Pizza Hut).

Last year, they paid £22.5bn to the UK government for these parcels of nothingness and a further £60bn to other European governments. And so they hugely increased their indebtedness at precisely the wrong moment, just as a ten-year phase of economic growth had reached its peak. They claim - I have heard even Sir Chris Gent, the chief executive of Vodafone, say this - that they were obliged to bid because their shareholders would not have forgiven them if they had failed to acquire these licences, such was the frenzy of optimism about the growth prospects of telecoms and internet businesses. If true (and it probably was), this is something they should take up with their shareholders. Gordon Brown cannot be blamed for telecoms companies' fear of offending investors suffering from temporary but pervasive insanity.

In any case, the global electronics industry suffered from over-capacity, caused by years of exaggerated forecasts of its growth prospects. The fat would have been exposed and eliminated, with or without the 3G auctions. The job losses at Marconi, Motorola, Ericsson, Philips and the rest, therefore, owe more to management shortcomings than to Brown's policies.

The other charge against Brown is that he has increased the cost of developing 3G services, and so delayed their commercial exploitation. This is probably correct. Europe could lose some of its vaunted global lead in the design and manufacture of mobiles. And a few teenagers will have to wait before they can download home movies or the latest Nelly Furtado track while dodging pedestrians on their collapsible scooters. But set those costs against the £22.5bn that the government has raised - money that will buy a vast number of schools and hospitals.

The shame is that Brown has not found other ways of raising money through auction. One missed opportunity has been Terminal Five at Heathrow, which the Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers, is due to approve any day now. Rather than endowing the British Airports Authority with this monopolists' licence, it could have been auctioned to the highest bidder. Sadly, this approach was considered and rejected. Fortunately, the ministers have not yet abandoned hope of finding a way round EU rules that prevent them receiving a bean when allocating aeroplane landing slots.

Property development also has revenue-raising potential. I am told, for example, that the current review of planning law will make it easier for a local council to insist that a developer provides social housing or a municipal swimming pool in return for permission to build a new superstore or hotel. So long as an effective watchdog can stop unnecessary developments, this institutionalised system of "fronthanders" would be vastly superior to the hole-and-corner world of backhanders that has characterised municipal planning since time immemorial. Why bribe a councillor when you can bribe a community?

However, my prescription would go further. Except where UK competitiveness would be put at risk, the government should auction off all manner of rights and licences. For example, it could assess how many new superstores the country could sustain without undue damage to local communities. It could then sell off the rights to build them to the highest bidder. It could do the same with substantial office developments in the City of London or other urban areas where demand for space is high and supply limited.

Auctions could also raise money from consumers. For example, after an assessment of how much road traffic particular areas could support, there could be annual sales of permits to use cars in cities. A certain number would be given away to nurses, the disabled, nursing mothers, and so on. And a finite number would be sold to those prepared to pay more than a market clearing level. If the proceeds were invested in significant enhancements to public transport, such an approach would help to narrow inequalities.

Is there much chance that the Treasury will reinvent itself as an auctioneer of public goods (and bads)? Tony Blair may worry it is all a bit too overtly redistributive. On the other hand, it goes with the grain of markets - and it would put off the evil day (for him) when mainstream taxes are raised to fund public service improvements.

Robert Peston is editorial director of QUEST(tm); http://www.csquest.com; e-mail rpeston@csquest.com