(No) stitch in time

That last Labour lot were an utter shower. It’s cos of them we’re in the mess we’re in, cos of them spending, make that wasting, all our money. Wasting I tell you.

Hold that thought for a mo ….. the scenes from waterworld/Somerset are truly gobsmacking as is the fact it appears to have been going on since Christmas. Clearly something should have been and/or must be done about this, except something already was – spending on flood defences in England and Wales was cut (in absolute and real terms) years ago by the current government.

This was part of the initial approach to austerity; routine spending e.g. benefits, are a bugger to cut as the Irritable Bowel-Duncan-Smith experience exemplifies. Capital spending on the other hand is relatively easy, you just cancel or postpone the building of new things like seawalls. Hence, in the early years of austerity, capital spending, even though it’s a relatively modest share of total government spending, accounted for a disproportionate share of the cuts. Capital spending on flood defences illustrates this perfectly, the total being cut 27% from 2010/11 (the last year of Labour spending plans) to 2011/12.

Now would a Labour government have done anything differently if it’d won the last election? Doubt it. But, some of the last Labour government’s spending looks a bit more sensible allova sudden what with them having started ramping up spending towards the £1bn a year level that’s been deemed necessary to cope with all the freak weather we now appear to have.

And there’s the obvious charge of short-sightedness that can be made against the current lot. Would keeping spending at Labour levels have prevented current events? Doubt it, but it might have ameliorated some of them, which, given what they’ll ultimately mean in terms of additional spending on tidying up the mess, lost economic activity and all our insurance premiums, suggests the spending cuts may eventually cost us all far more than they apparently saved *. Oh and it would have created jobs as well.

And BTW the above numbers are nominal i.e. don’t take inflation into account, meaning the reduction in spending is even bigger than it looks.

* you get the impression the nasty bedroom tax has already gone in this direction as well what with the time and money being wasted on chasing up newly created rent arrears and what not.

Paul De Grauwe remix

I reckon Paul De Grauwe's Vox article on austerity is already a classic, by which  I mean 50+ years from now economic historians will approach it the same way they do Keynes's "Can Lloyd George Do it?".

As with Keynes's pamphlet, De Grauwe is also seeking to influence government policy rather than articulate any grand, new theory. He does so by setting out clearly, concisely and in a deliberately populist fashion, how the rationale for fiscal austerity is utter bollocks. By doing so he renders fiscal austerity and all it entails an exercise in bigoted, unthinking, hurtful, dogma.

And if that wasn't enough, heck, he even appeals to the great and the good's self-interest when he says "As it becomes obvious that the austerity programs produce unnecessary sufferings especially for the millions of people who have been thrown into unemployment and poverty, resistance against these programs is likely to increase. A resistance that may lead millions of people to wish to be liberated from what they perceive to be shackles imposed by the euro."

So in honour of Professor Groo at a time when the Cyprus bank deposit mess sees the EU plumbing whole new depths of dumb,  the attached "remix" of some of his data strikes me as an appropriate tribute.

Ta da!

The original being >>>

Pushing string

So there’s fiscal policy and then there’s monetary policy, the other side of the economic policy coin. Ideally the two work together. Now? Less so.

Fiscal austerity is doing its damndest to undermine and generally crap on demand what with the massive reduction seen in government spending on capital goods, investment and what not to preserve the UK’s AAA status. Monetary policy by contrast is at best tinkering and tickling round the edge as follows:

-          Historically low interest rates to minimise the number of indebted bods and companies failing (hmmm, what about zombie companies being a bad thing then?)

-          Low interest rates also encourage a competitive i.e, a devalued pound (take that all you dumb fucks that whined about the credit rating downgrade undermining the phallic worth of the pound, that’s monetary policy bitches)
- Low rates also also (well negative real rates) provide a disincentive to save i.e. they encourage people to spend, spend, spend in ourt consumer driven economy
- Obviously, following on from the above, low interest rates and the associated tolerance of above target inflation cheekily chip away at the real value of debt in our deeply indebted nation (shame pay growth is also negative in real terms)

-         Then there's quantitative easing or QE to encourage well its not that clear really, investment in marginally more risky, but still comfortably investment grade assets? To prop up prime asset values that benefit bods with pensions? No got a scoob really

-          And latterly the invention of all sorts of ways of cutting credit costs to, to, well what exactly?

Am guessing, judging by what Bank of England bods say, this last one is about encouraging demand by making it cheaper to borrow except, well how’d you reconcile that with fiscal austerity and what that’s been doing to the willingness to invest for years now? The answer is you can’t, the reason being because you can't.

To give an example using the key economic example of pies; make a pie cheaper then yeah, sure I might buy one, mebbe even two extra, but that’s cos I like pies. If I didn’t like pies, then whether they cost 50 quid or a horsemeat-tastic 50p, I ain’t buying any more and you’re wasting your time.

Similarly, cutting the cost of credit don’t mean shit if I don’t want to borrow new money or to quote from the latest Bank of England creditconditions survey

there was “a reduction in credit demand from small companies … (and) … demand from large firms was expected to remain broadly unchanged” So there you are then, banks don't want to lend to small businesses, banks don't want to lend to small businesses ....

Really? The Bank of England's own research into the impact of its own policy indicates small businesses aren't that keen on borrowing right now, which makes sense. Like European exports aside if you were a business dependent on government contracts would you fancy investing in new stuff right now? Thought not. Refinance your existing debt makes sense obviously, but borrowing more? Nah, no thanks.

Hence, a key and innovative part of current monetary policy looks about as effective as pushing string.

Masochistic e.rection disguise

You know an economic policy has had its credibility chips when the more politicians try to justify it the more they sound like they’re describing a masochistic e.rection.

Hence, fiscal austerity is painful, but thankfully the ConDems are up to taking the kind of big, strong, firm and tough (and blue-veined) decisions we need if we’re to cum through these hard, oh so hard times together. Indeed.

The disguise part here stems from the reality, which is that for all any politician might claim we’re all in this together, the following are the people really feeling the pain - the working poor, the unemployed, the disabled and the infirm. That they are doing so due to policies that are actively undermining the growth they’re supposed to be promoting exacerbates this bloody awful reality.