15th January, 2009.

Patient readers this blog is triggered by Jeff Randall’s column in the Daily Telegraph today.

In it he inadvertently discloses the identity of the puppet-masters dictating the Tory political agenda around public spending cuts.

In a somewhat histrionic column in which he describes the public deficit as a ‘disaster’ ( he should mind his language: Haiti’s earthquake is a disaster) Randall quotes a piece of ‘research’ by the French bank, Société Générale.  The paper is titled “Popular Delusions” and its authors explain some simple facts about government spending cuts to Telegraph readers:

“Removing the stimulus will involve pain; lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity.”

Not for bankers it won’t.

The Société Générale authors continue:  “But policy-makers don’t like lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity.”

Forgive me for interrupting dear bankers, but a little more ‘research’ might reveal that it’s not ‘policy-makers’ that don’t like pain and higher unemployment.  Its the people. The victims. Known in a democracy as the voters.

The bankers drone on:  “They (the politicians) enacted the stimulus in the first place to avoid it!”

Such blinding insight.  They, the elected, democratic politicians, rightly fear that ‘pain and unemployment’ will incur the wrath of the voters – especially if this pain and unemployment is a direct result of the greed and irresponsible behaviour of a small elite of financiers.

Then our bankers pose a rhetorical question: “At what point will they (the politicians) decide they do want lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity?”

Bravely, they volunteer an answer:  “Given the choice, they won’t, ever.”  (And if the choice is put to the people, does that mean that, given a choice, they won’t ever vote for George Osborne and his friends?)

It is at this point that our bankers at  Société Générale turn nasty and spell out the threat:

“So it will be imposed on them …….. by a suddenly less generous bond market via a government funding crisis.”

This is nothing short of blackmail. Blackmail of democratically-elected and accountable politicians.

Furthermore this is blackmail from bankers at Société Générale whose recent history is one of fraud, incompetence, scandal and a taxpayer-backed bail-out.

Let me remind you dear readers, of that recent history.

In January, 2008, according to the Wall St. Journal (30 April, 2009) “Société Générale – a French bank – disclosed it had lost €4.9 billion ($6.44 billion) – the biggest net trading loss by one person in banking history – at the hands of a low-level employee who the bank alleged had engaged in unauthorized and unhedged trading for nearly two years.”

When news broke of this massive fraud and of the incompetence of those managing traders at the bank, President Sarkozy of France stung by growing public anger,  lashed out at the bank and particularly its chairman, Mr. Bouton (pictured above):

“We have to put a stop to this financial system which is out of its mind and which has lost sight of its purpose” Reuters quoted him as saying on 26th January, 2008.

The President placed public pressure on the chairman of the bank to resign, but Daniel Bouton “would not bow to political pressure”.

Why should a banker bow to mere democratic pressure?  After all, bankers live in an ‘offshore’  world – beyond the reach of democratic institutions – the world of ‘offshore capitalism. ‘

“As the credit crisis spread in October (2008), the French government announced it would provide €10.5 billion to the country’s banks to help them continue lending to individuals;

“Société Générale received €1.7 billion of those funds.”

“Then, as French workers took to the streets this year to demand that the government introduce measures to boost their spending power, the bank announced a plan to reward bosses, including Mr. Bouton (the chairman), with stock options. It was only after President Nicolas Sarkozy called the move “a scandal,” that Mr. Bouton and others agreed to renounce the options.”

These are the bankers that act as trusty ‘researchers’ to Jeff Randall, and as puppet-masters to those politicians – the Tories – that ruthlessly disregard the interests of their voters.

The question is this: will Telegraph readers vote for these puppets?  Call me naive, but I don’t believe they will.

This is the press release from the new economics foundation:

“Two days ahead of the pre-budget report, and as the UN climate change talks open in Copenhagen – the second report from the authors of the original Green New Deal argues that the British Chancellor is likely to miss a historic opportunity to tackle public debt, create thousands of new green jobs and kick-start the transformation to a low-carbon economy.

The cuts won’t work, the Green New Deal Group’s second report shows how, contrary to the policy of all the major political parties, cutting public spending now will tip the nation into a deeper recession by increasing unemployment, reducing the tax received and limiting government funding available to kick-start the Green New Deal.

Instead a bold new programme of ‘green quantitative easing,’ rather than simply propping up failing banks, could help reduce the public debt and kick-start the transformation of the UK’s energy supply while creating thousands of new green-collar jobs.

Drawing on evidence from the great depression in the UK and the USA, the Group show how cuts in public spending then, before the economy had recovered, tipped both nations deeper into depression.
Now, the Group say, the Chancellor must announce a plan that updates the lessons from history for the challenges of the modern world, and spend to reduce the public debt by investing in the long-term restructuring of the UK’s energy infrastructure needed to meet the challenges of climate change and the inevitable peak and decline of oil.

To illustrate the potential of ‘green quantitative easing’, new calculations produced by nef (the new economics foundation) for the Group reveal that:

A sample of £10 billion in green quantitative easing invested in the energy efficiency sector could:

• Create 60,000 jobs (or 350,000 person-years of employment) while also reducing emissions by a further 3.96MtCO2e each year;
• This could also create public savings of £4.5 billion over five years in reduced benefits and increased tax intake alone;

A sample of £10 billion in ‘green quantitative easing’ invested in onshore wind could:

• Increase wind’s contribution to the UK’s total electricity supply from its current 1.9 per cent[i] to 10 per cent (39 TWhe) and;
• Create over 36,000 jobs in installation and direct and indirect manufacturing.
• This is a total of 180,000 job-years of employment – here we have described each ‘job’ as providing stable employment for an average of five job-years.
• Create a further 4,800 jobs in the operations and maintenance of the installed capacity and other related employment[ii] over the entire 20 year lifetime of the installation (equivalent to 96,000 job-years)
• And, if this directly replaced energy from conventional sources, it could decarbonise the UK economy by 2.4 per cent.[i] – reducing emissions from the power sector by up to 16 Mt[iii]CO2e[iv] each year  This corresponds to a £19 billion reduction in environmental damage

Or, a sample investment of £10 billion could:

• re-skill 1.5 million people for the low-carbon skills of the future, bringing 120,000 people back into the workforce, and increasing the earnings of those with a low income by a total of £15.4 billion.

The Group recommends:

• A £50 billion programme in ‘green quantitative easing’ in the short term to rebuild the economy. This is the amount of annual spending recommended by some of the most comprehensive analyses to date of the amounts needed to re-engineer the UK economy to meet the challenges of a low carbon future;

• Next, planning must begin for all of the new forms of bond finance detailed in the Group’s report to ensure the long-term stable funding needed for the long-term transformation of UK infrastructure.

Once spending on the green economy of the future has breathed life back into the deflated economy, the Green New Deal will require a whole new savings and investment infrastructure to meet the long-term investment needed to underpin the Green New Deal and to meet the needs of a new generation of investors who are fed up with all that has gone before.

This means secure new forms of saving which promise stable returns over the longer-term. The Group put forward a range of new measures to help public borrowing and encourage public investment by individuals, local authorities and companies in greening and reviving the economy. The foundations for these must be laid now. These include:

Measures on tax that are explicitly designed to re-gear the UK economy and transform energy infrastructure:

• Tax incentives on green savings and investment, so that future ISA tax relief – costing more than £2 billion a year – is only available for funds invested in green savings (tax relief for ISAs was more than the whole green stimulus package announced in the 2009 Budget, estimated to be worth just £1.4 billion).
• A general tax-avoidance provision to end the abuse of tax allowances. If just half of the tax avoidance in the UK was stopped by this provision, it would raise more than £10 billion a year.
• A Financial Transaction Tax, commonly known as a “Tobin Tax”. Such a tax, applied internationally at a rate of about 0.05 per cent has the potential to raise more than £400 billion a year. This could be the basis for a Green New Deal in the Global South, playing a significant role in enabling the majority world to adapt to climate change as well as breaking the carbon chains of fossil fuel dependence.
• New savings mechanisms that support the greening of the economy now, create thousands of new jobs and guarantee stable returns into the future:
• Green bonds, which will be issued by the government with the explicit guarantee that the funds raised will be invested in new green infrastructure for the UK. The bonds will carry conventional rates of return for bonds.
• Local authority bonds, to invest in energy efficiency and provide renewable energy for each of the country’s three million council tenants, as well as for all other local-authority-owned or -controlled buildings, such as town halls, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure.
• Carbon linked bonds, to align investment returns with carbon saving and create a significant body of investors who will take the risk on there being carbon savings that can be secured.

A new publicly owned ‘Green New Deal Investment Bank’ to allocate the capital provided by green quantitative easing, and new bank lending to government:

• Green New Deal Investment Bank, a publicly owned bank to hold and disburse capital provided by ‘green quantitative easing’. It will be used exclusively to fund companies and projects designed to accelerate the transition towards a low carbon economy.
• Treasury Deposit Receipts, like those issued during the Second World War, a mechanism whereby banks were forced to use their ability to create credit to lend to government.

The Green New Deal group believe that despite the appearance of calm, the need for the implementation of the Green New Deal is greater than ever. When the Group launched their first report, new analysis suggested that from 1 August 2008 there were only 100 months, or less, to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before we hit a potential point of no return. The climate clock is still ticking and nothing like the scale of reform needed to rapidly re-engineer the economy has been implemented, anywhere.

This could be a real opportunity for the UK to show global leadership by implementing an interlinked package that recognises the need for targeted public spending in a downturn.  Not to further fuel an economy hard-wired into ever increasing use of fossil fuels, but to revitalise the productive economy and lay the foundations of the low-carbon infrastructure of the future.

The opportunity for action is even more pressing than it was when President Franklin Roosevelt instigated his bold New Deal programme that touched almost every aspect of economy and society. The timescale is limited by the urgent need to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before the risk of uncontrollable global warming increases significantly. Today, there is a plan on the table that could revitalise our damaged economy while also radically restructuring it for a low carbon future. Now the vision is needed to implement it before it is too late.
-    ENDS –

For more information, or to arrange an interview with a member of the Green New Deal Group, please contact:

Ruth Potts, co-ordinator, the Green New Deal Group, on:

t: 020 7820 6357         m: 07749 026 203       email: ruth.potts@neweconomics.org

Quotes from the Green New Deal Group:

“There is a pervasive and infantile notion that government budgets are like household budgets. They are not. By spending and investing in jobs, governments generate tax revenues, reduce welfare payments – and cut government debt into the bargain. Government must spend away the debt – on flood defences, on alternative energy and energy efficiency.  By investing in green-collar jobs that can’t be done in  China, government spending will pay for itself, fill the economic crater caused by the collapse in private investment – and lead to a recovery in public finances.” Says Ann Pettifor, nef fellow and Green New Deal Group member

“In the bad old days of medicine, there was a popular belief that draining blood from the sick would help them recover. More often it hastened their demise. The idea that widespread cuts are necessary to help the economy recover and pay back the public debt may be appealing as a knee jerk reaction but it makes no economic sense. An economic transfusion of resources to build a low-carbon economy is what we need to get the patient on its feet. Do this and we will create jobs, raise revenues, cut carbon and increase our energy security. It is not a time for the economic policy equivalent of medieval bloodletting.” Says Andrew Simms, policy director of nef (the new economics foundation and Green New Deal Group Member

“This is about using fiscal policy - government spending, borrowing, and tax revenue – to create real jobs,  real investment and real energy security in our economy – and all of it green. That’s not just being green, that’s about working, financing, governing and sustaining green – all in a plan that works across conventional policy boundaries to show that the Green New Deal group doesn’t just talk about integrated thinking – it delivers it too” says Richard Murphy, Director of Tax Research LLP and Green New Deal Group Member

“Its time for the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme to stop magicing money out of nothing to prop up the banks. Instead it should use this form of money to fund green jobs and business opportunities on a huge scale. Also people are saving not spending, so the Government needs to see ‘savers as saviours’ and provide inducements for them to use such savings to fund a Green New Deal”. says Colin Hines, convenor of the Green New Deal Group

Notes to editors:

1.    The cuts won’t work: Why spending on a Green New Deal will reduce the public debt, cut carbon emissions, increase energy security and reduce fuel poverty is the second publication of the Green New Deal Group. Meeting since early 2007, its membership is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating to the current financial, energy and environmental crises. The views and recommendations of the report are those of the group writing in their individual capacities. The report is published on behalf of the Green New Deal Group by nef (the new economics foundation)

2.    The Green New Deal Group’s first report, The Green New Deal: Joined-up policies to solve the triple crunch of the credit crisis, climate change and high oil prices was published in July 2008.

3.    The Green New Deal report will be delivered to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, with a letter signed by the members of the Green New Deal Group demanding a response to its proposals.
The Green New Deal Group are, in alphabetical order:

Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian,
Colin Hines,Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit,
Tony Juniper, Environmentalist and Campaigner,
Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid,
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP,
Richard Murphy, Co-Director of Finance for the Future and Director, Tax Research LLP,
Ann Pettifor, former head of the Jubilee 2000 debt relief campaign, Campaign Director of Operation Noah,
Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, nef (the new economics foundation).

Most economists (who should know better) confuse the government’s budget deficit with total government debt.

The distinction really is important.

Mixing them up is a little like confusing stocks and flows.  Or confusing your outstanding mortgage – say £200,000 – with your monthly debt repayments. They are quite different things, and if you were to lose your job, the flows (paid with your salary) come to a halt, and then it’s the stock – the £200,000 – that really matters.

Furthermore it is quite possible to increase your mortgage – and lower your monthly payments.  Many did this in the boom years of mortgage re-financing. Or even to decrease your mortgage and increase your monthly payments.

So, just as the movements in regular mortgage payments tell us little about the outstanding stock of debt, so government deficits tell us little about the stock of debt invested and the stock of debt outstanding.

The key point is this: the annual budget deficit is not a measure of the scale of government spending.  Instead it is a measure of the outcome of that spending. And that spending may not be evidence in itself of fiscal stimulus.

The annual deficit could rise because the government cuts public investment – and thereby increases spending on unemployment benefit payments and lost tax revenues from those made unemployed by the cuts.

In other words, it could just be evidence of the rise in automatic transfer payments – like increased unemployment benefits, combined with a fall in government revenues from taxes.

And if GDP is declining, then of course the government deficit rises as a share of that.

The right focus therefore is not on the deficit, but on government final consumption or total government investment.

But most economists don’t.

Instead they home in on the deficit.

It’s not clear why.  Anyway, this gives me a chance to reproduce once again the chart of the British government’s stock of debt since the 1850s – a chart which shows how low the government’s current debt stock is relative to earlier periods of crisis.

(for more on the public sector debt, see my post of 28 October, 2009 here