Registered user login:

It's the cycle, stupid!

Alan Duncan

Published 19 September 2007

It's Gordon Brown's economic management that's left Britain ill equipped to deal with problems posed in the world financial markets writes Tory business spokesman Alan Duncan

Ultimately, all economics is cyclical. Long periods of economic growth are possible, but they invariably end sometime, and a downturn follows. No matter how successful or fortunate a country or company's economic management may be, the good times always have an end point. Nobody has yet managed to abolish the business cycle: it is the most enduring economic phenomenon.

The surest sign that problems are looming is when bankers, institutions and countries convince themselves that they have entered a new period in which economic gravity can somehow be defied.

We have had the secondary banking crisis, the collapse of loans to Latin America (on which Harold Lever famously said that "countries can't go bankrupt, but banks who lend them money can") junk bonds, the dot com boom and now the disintegration of sub prime debt. One might add to the list hedge fund mania and the inability of any country to 'buck the market', hence the ERM. A further candidate is private equity, many of whom are highly geared, whose fortunes might yet prompt echoes of Harold Lever "the companies they bought will still exist even when the vehicles which bought them have gone under".

The worst dangers lie in a combination of institutional folly and governmental hubris.

Institutions have allowed their judgment on the quality of lending to become polluted. In a boom, the game of pass the parcel can last for a long time before it implodes. Ever more inferior packages of debt can find a willing buyer who hopes to sell it on before the music stops. Sensible lending criteria become ignored for as long as institutions think they will be able to offload the problem to someone else. Also institutions become insensitive to the human misery of poor debt as they sell their loan book to others in the wholesale market and fail to think of each borrower as an individual.

For sub prime debt, the music has stopped and market liquidity has evaporated. America has sneezed….! Much of ths has been caused by an irresponsible US Government deficit.

Thanks to globalisation (although our gratitude may yet be short lived) most governments have enjoyed a decade of sustained growth. The reason government is now culpable in the UK is that they have not used that decade to prepare for the years that will inevitably follow.

Especially with globalisation's pressures on competitiveness, Brown should have recalibrated the economy so as to reinforce it for more difficult times later. He has done the opposite. He has squandered a decade of economic prosperity, disguised growing structural problems, and deferred decisions which could quite easily have been taken when things were going well. He has used the decade to support his political ambitions over and above the long-term interests of the country.

He has doubled the council tax, destroyed people's pension, increased the proportion of GDP taken by the state, created jobs disproportionately in the public sector, taxed everything that moves (and right up to the buffers) and presided over a collapse in saving. Personal debt has soared, and many personal mortgages are on a 2 year special deal cliff edge. Credit card debts are also a game of pass the parcel as people try to take advantage of 6 month 0% deals. The economy has no slack in it to cope with a downturn; it is unduly reliant on the City; and housing transaction costs are likely to prove an exaggerated downward force on the housing market. He has not even managed the public finances sufficient to support inflation-based increases for public sector pay.

In other words, the condition of the economy, thanks to Gordon Brown, is ill-equipped to cope with the problems posed by events in world financial markets, and it contains elements which are likely to exacerbate the problem. UK conditions are not prepared for the turn in the cycle and worse, with nothing set aside for a rainy day, the pain stands to be greater than it would otherwise have been.

Downturn.doc

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

gnuneo
19 September 2007 at 15:33

all true.

but would the tories have done any differently? Highly unlikely.

the Labservatives are utterly incapable of making this countries long-term economy secure, because to do that requires we move towards real capitalism, where the companies are capitalist partnerships, they cannot be sucked dry by foreign owners, and the rewards and profits from people's hard work go to the people themselves, not ultra-wealthy feudalists who vampirishly live off the wealth generated by others, feudal lords in a post-industrial age.

they cannot do that, because the Labservatives are controlled by these historic relics of a previous age, who regard democracy as a foul taste in the mouth, and who regard themselves as 'superior' to the common person.

no matter what sweet noises made before an election, absolutely *nothing* will change under the tory branch of the Labservatives, indeed, as we can see from the days of Thatcher, things would almost certainly get worse faster.

--i wonder how many 'top' MPs from the Labservatives have ever gone to a State comprehensive school, or lived on benefits, or held a minimum wage job?

i wonder how many of them have even the *faintest* idea what life is like for the majority of Briton's?

i wonder if *any* of them deserve to be in power over us?

Carl Jones
19 September 2007 at 22:43

Some good points gnuneo. Mr Duncan is pitching a decoy. You are right about the plight of many ordinary folk. If we do hit a full blown recession, the public are ready to revolt, we could see a coup.

E.J.Dodson
20 September 2007 at 14:48

Yes, the so-called "business cycle" has been with us for centuries. What is also revealed by a study of history is that politics does indeed dictate economic outcomes. Business cycles are not natural; they are the result of societal externalities, of systems of law that have nurtured and protected entrenched privilege (i.e., a redistribution of wealth and income from producers to non-producers).

A careful reading of Adam Smith explains how this outcome arose and, to a limited extent, what changes (i.e. reforms) were needed to alter the course of history. Smith's French contemporaries, the French Physiocrats, reached similar conclusions, as did some political economists of the mid- and late-19th cnetury, most particularly John Stuart Mill and Henry George.

What they observed was that landed privilege created a rentier class that produced nothing and provided no services but drained wealth from those who did work and produce. If anything, the penetration of the rentier class in modern societies around the globe has become even more entrenched. A difference today is that corporate interests comprise a significant part of the rentier class, claming the "rents" associated with natural resource-laden lands. One only has to examine the data on land ownership, generally, to see how concentrated is the ownership of locations in the world's cities.

Even in the United States, where broad ownership of property and land was once a societal norm, land ownership has become as concentrated as in many of the countries dominated by landed oligarchies. Roughly half of the U.S. is privately-controlled, but the overwhelming concentration of control over value (i.e., over rents) is found in the financial and business centers of the nation's cities.

Economic theory provides the proof of this concentration. The selling price of land is determined by supply and demand factors, of course. The supply of land is essentially fixed (i.e., the supply curve is verticle). However, the supply of land available for economic use is far lower than the gross supply. Land hoarding and speculation further reduce the supply and drive up prices -- at the top of the business cycle to a point where producers cannot acquire land at the asking prices and still generate a profit. This is more the case than ever today because the market price of goods and many services is determined by global makets.

Land speculation is possible because rents are privatized and, thereby, capitalized into selling prices. The only effective means of making land more readily available to producers at affordable prices is to prevent the capitalization of rents, and this is accomplished by a high effective rate of taxation on rents. If societies were to adopt this change in public policy, much of the instability now present in the economies of countries would diminish.

gnuneo
24 September 2007 at 10:21

OR - the ownership of land is once again aimed towards owner-occupiers instead of rentiers as a priority.

although this can be achieved by exorbitant taxes upon rentier holdings, making it less of a financial investment, combining both approaches.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Alan Duncan

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?