This morning I joined the Guardian’s panel of Martin Kettle, Len McCluskey and Matthew Oakley to give our verdict on today’s GDP numbers:

Ann Pettifor:

“The Chancellor must eat humble pie”

The statisticians, clutching at straws, blamed the victims – the British people – for the measly 0.2% growth in GDP. It turns out we are too fond of holidaying (the royal wedding effect) and basking in “warm weather”.

But this cannot explain the fall in manufacturing by 0.3% and the 3.2% fall in electricity, gas and water supply. Nor does it explain the rise by 0.7% in “business services and finance”. The fact is the economy remains unbalanced, and the coalition government is doing very little to restore some balance, and with it the potential for recovery.

And without economic recovery, there can be little hope for the public finances. The fact is, the chancellor cannot cut the deficit if the economy does not recover. Today’s numbers offer little succour. GDP is still lower than it was in 2006 – four years after the crisis “debtonated” in August 2007.

The chancellor’s budgetary outcome depends on the plans of the entire economic system and its reactions to the Treasury’s policies. Right now the British economy is responding to the government’s determination not to provide a stimulus to the very weak private sector – by faltering.

The argument is that Britain “cannot afford” a fiscal stimulus. That we “cannot afford” to boost the private and public sectors, create jobs, generate income and restore hope to 2.5 million unemployed people.

But we could, apparently, afford to bail out the banking system.

The coalition government’s determination not to stimulate the creation of employment, and with it the income that will generate recovery – will be viewed negatively not just by the powerful rating agencies, but by the British people too.

The fact is that just as work makes things affordable for individuals, so employment makes recovery affordable for the economy as a whole. And until the chancellor eats humble pie, and absorbs this economic lesson, neither the economy, nor the public finances will recover.

Martin Kettle:

“The chancellor is a weakened figure”

The longer the British economy continues to show no real signs of growth, the weaker George Osborne’s political stock looks. So aQ2 growth figure of 0.2% is clearly bad news for the chancellor’s authority. It could, of course, have been worse, and it very nearly was. A little growth is disproportionately better than no growth at all. But the fact is that growth has fallen over the quarter and has only risen by the same tiny amount of 0.2% since the spending review in the autumn. Osborne will still blame Labour for this underlying weakness, but the passage of time gradually weakens that argument, while Labour can point to the fact that growth was rising when Alastair Darling handed over in May 2010.

This figure puts a lot of pressure on the economy’s ability to reach the 1.7% annual growth forecast over the next six months, and this in turn increases pressure on Osborne to respond with new measures. No chancellor likes to be in this position at any time, and Osborne is particularly at risk from the economy’s negligible pick-up, since his whole strategy is based on the argument that strict fiscal disciplines will aid growth, of which there is no evidence so far. Yet Osborne cannot easily take any of the quick-fix measures – like cutting taxes or interest rates – either. The chancellor is a weakened figure now and his enemies and rivals will scent opportunities.

• Martin Kettle is associate editor of the Guardian

Len McCluskey:

“The price we pay for neo-liberalism”

Set alongside Britain’s moribund economy, Monty Python’s parrot would look like Usain Bolt. The growth figures show our country still stuck in nought-point-something land while other European states, most notably Germany, power ahead.

There are three related reasons for this.

Most immediately, the government’s exclusive reliance on savage public spending cuts are sucking the air out of the economy and depressing demand when a stimulus is clearly needed.

Second, we have allowed our manufacturing base to shrivel while relying over-much on a bloated and now semi-bankrupt financial services sector, for which “growth” still mainly means bigger bonuses. The axe currently hanging over Britain’s last train-building plant in Derby suggests that little has changed in official thinking here.

Third, there is no plan for growth beyond an entirely dogmatic trust in the private sector. The possibilities of, for example, using the state’s stake in major banks to drive investment are simply ignored.

Today’s figures are the price we pay for having a government trying to tackle the crisis of neo-liberal economics with essentially neo-liberal tools. The new thinking needed to build a vibrant 21st century economy which delivers for everyone, not just the elite, most likely requires a new government.

• Len McCluskey is general secretary of Unite

Matthew Oakley:

“It’s about sticking to plan A”

This relatively gloomy GDP data is not unexpected and should not be a cause for panic. However, it does underline that the government needs a more coherent and ambitious approach to growth. This would not mean spending more: the government must stick to its budgetary plans. Not doing so would see us return to an approach based on borrowing and government spending, which we have seen to be unsustainable. Instead it must undertake fundamental reform that focuses on the long term.

Policy Exchange will soon be publishing a report outlining how a new pro-growth approach to planning and urban development could stop central and local government control constricting the growth of our cities and towns, and hindering business development. To back this up, the UK also needs to accelerate reform to its welfare system and to transform transport infrastructure investment to bring in more private sector involvement and improve our creaking networks.

Finally, a clearer approach to industrial policy is needed. This is not about picking winners but about being clear on where growth comes from and where the UK has a comparative advantage. It is then about ensuring that structural reform facilitates growth in these areas and encourages seed funding for innovative businesses, while encouraging robust competition.

Reform in each of these areas would not be about snap decisions based on one or two poor quarters of growth, nor would it be about making headlines with policies that sound good but deliver little. It is about sticking to plan A and backing that up with a greater focus on structural reform that allows the UK to grow now and in the future.

• Matthew Oakley is head of enterprise, growth and social policy at Policy Exchange

To refresh your memory: it was on that day that the world’s banks woke up to the scale of their debts, and to the simple truth that they may not all be repaid. On that day, the French investment bank BNP Paribas suspended three investment funds due to a “complete evaporation of liquidity” in the market. BNP’s announcement compelled the intervention of the US’s Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, which both pumped $90billion into the global banking system. As Larry Elliott notes, 9 August, 2007 ” has all the resonance of August 4 1914. It marks the cut-off point between “an Edwardian summer” of prosperity and tranquillity and the trench warfare of the credit crunch – the failed banks, the petrified markets, the property markets blown to pieces by a shortage of credit. ”

So ‘debtonation’ stands as a reminder of that day. However, we also know that the private debts of the individuals, households but also more importantly the corporate sector have not ‘debtonated’. They are still on the books, and in the case of the private sector in the UK, but also wider Europe, look set to rise further. As Douglas Coe and I have pointed out in a paper we have written for PRIME, “Private debt has risen relentlessly since the early 1980s. Most commentators focus on the extent of household debt, which rose from around 40 per cent of GDP before the 1980s to a peak of 110 per cent in 2009. But corporate debt is even more elevated, rising from 50-60 per cent to a peak of 130 per cent in 2009. The latest National Accounts show that both measures fell back in 2010, but only by a very small margin: households to 105 per cent of GDP and corporates to 125 per cent.”

So there are very large debts on the books of the private sector, that have not ‘debtonated’ yet. And we are not alone in believing that their ‘debtonation’ will lead to yet another financial crisis, involving the banking system. Standard and Poor’s caused a flutter in the stock market dovecotes this week, when they downgraded US debt. But of greater interest is their comment on the threats facing the US banking system (drawn to my attention by Yves Smith ):

“We believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008, as our downward revisions of our Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment (BICRA) on the U.S. to Group 3 from Group 2 in December 2009 and to Group 2 from Group 1 in December 2008 reflect (see “Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments,” March 8, 2011, and “Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: United States of America,” Feb. 1, 2010, both on RatingsDirect).

Which is why the title for this blog will not be changed.

So Sir James Sassoon has joined the Eton boy, Osborne, and the Barclays banker, David Laws, at the Treasury, as Commercial Secretary – a post invented and designed for him.  Sir James was vice chairman Investment Banking at UBS Warburg between1985-2002, where he specialised in privatisations. 

The capture of the Treasury by the City of London is now complete.

The war on industry and the public sector can now begin in earnest.

Their first target?  Britain’s small businesses. “The Treasury has axed Labour’s proposed credit adjudicator scheme, designed to give statutory redress to small businesses denied bank lending” according to the FT today.

So the City, after cutting off the vital artery of direct bank lending to small businesses, has now, after capturing the Treasury, cut off another……God help Britain’s struggling private small business sector – so dependent on government spending.

And let’s all wave goodbye to economic recovery. For Osborne and Law were rewarded for their crude hacking away at public spending yesterday, by a fall in sterling.

A sign that ‘the markets’ are not too dim-witted to grasp that cutting public spending will hurt the private sector, and with it, economic recovery.

As if vicious attacks on both the public and private sectors are not absorbing enough, Sassoon, David Laws and Osborne have found time and energy to destroy the reputation of Vince Cable: a man whose formidable reputation for honest, straight talking was built on a ferocious critique of the City of London.

It’s sad, and a tad distasteful watching a junior nonentity from the Liberal Democrats join with the City and the Tories in the ruination of a man that until quite recently, was perceived as a political titan.

It’s even sadder watching Vince collude in this destruction of his reputation.

Last night’s interview with Paxman was painful to watch. Cable whose department and with it his political authority, is about to be weakened by the bankers, was challenged about his sudden about-turn and support for spending cuts.

The crisis in Greece, it appears, is the explanation. It only came to his attention the day after the election, and caused his volte face, although there are few parallels between Greece and the UK, as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has argued. According to the NIESR, comparing the UK to Greece is ‘misguided’ as Britain’s outstanding debt stock is well below 100% of GDP, while Greece’s has been at this level for 20 years. Furthermore, Greece is captive within the straitjacket of the banker-designed single currency system. Unlike the UK, its government has been stripped of control over interest rates, and the exchange rate.

Cable’s pathetic defence of the indefensible reminded me of Enoch Powell’s comment that ‘all political lives end in failure’.

Sadly that truth may come to apply to an honest, decent man that once challenged the reckless, and economically unsustainable power of the City of London.

If so, it would not be fair.

End .

With a backdrop of bankers looting the EU’s Treasuries (via a bailout that rivals George Bush’s TARP) let us consider one of the most significant Dem-Con appointments (and a non-appointment) to the British cabinet.

That of someone who until now was invisible: David Laws the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

His Wikipedia profile (updated on the day of his elevation, and before he had taken up his ministerial responsibilities) depicts him as the man that speaks for his party on matters relating to kiddie-winkies and families and, no doubt, motherhood and apple pie.  He is also commended for his conciliatory role in negotiating the Scottish Parliament coalition.

No mention here of his real background.

For, according to ePolitix, David Laws was once Vice President of JP Morgan and Co and based in the United States, before becoming Managing Director of Barclays de Zoete Wedd in 1992.

Now, in my book the most obvious candidate for the job of Chancellor, or Chief Secretary to the Treasury,  was surely Vince Cable, a man credited for his prescience in predicting the financial crisis, respected for his ongoing analysis of that crisis and regarded as a “scourge of City ‘fat cats’.”

Why was he shunted across to the toothless Department of Business, Innovation and Skills? And why was a man who until now has had absolutely no record of speaking out on the financial crisis, elevated to a powerful post at the Treasury?

Could it be that Vince Cable is unacceptable to the City? That he was likely to threaten the oligarchical role of the British banking community, and their grip on the UK Treasury?

Evidently so. What else can explain the Financial Times’s headline (under a picture of David Laws and the Old Etonian) “Coalition softens stance on banks” (FT 13 May 2010).  And the comment that “proposals for banking reform announced by the new coalition government appear to take a much more measured approach to the task of reshaping Britain’s bloated banking sector”.

So be afeared.

While most economists recognise (as does the FT’s Martin Wolf) that “the source of the government debt…. is the past profligacy of large segments of the private sector, and in particular the financial sector.” (FT 12 May 2010) yesterday’s Dem-Con coalition statement argued to the contrary. Government debt, according to our new political masters, is the result of “Labour’s financial crisis’ – with the City of London blanked out.

This framing of the debate is deliberate, and Labour was profoundly unwise, and irresponsible, for allowing it to pass unchallenged during the election campaign.

Because this devious framing of the causes of the financial crisis was at the heart of the Conservative election campaign strategy. And even while the Tories hid George Osborne away in a cupboard for the full duration of the election campaign, the framing of the issue remained central to their strategy. The role of the City of London was completely ignored, and the entire financial crisis laid at the door of the government, and the innocents dependent on, and working for, the public sector.

It was the most dishonourable and deceitful sleight of hand in modern British politics, I would contend.  And sadly, both Labour and too many of the British public bought into this framing of the debate.

So the ground is now laid. Bankers are preparing to move from looting Treasuries in the US and EU – to once again looting the British Treasury.  And as Michael Hudson argues, to shift the burden of taxation from property and finance – back on to Labour.

Less public money spent on welfare and jobs, means more money for bank bailouts.

Labour’s claims for jobs, for healthcare and pensions will be subordinated to claims by the banks “to get fully paid on hundreds of billions of dollars of recklessly bad loans… reduced to junk status.”

With a totally inexperienced and economically inept Old Etonian in charge: with David Laws playing the role of decoy in this proposed Great Bank Robbery, and aided and abetted  by subservient economists, the Treasury remains within the firm grip of Britain’s most powerful oligarchy.

What is at stake is not just ‘savage cuts’ inflicted on the innocent and the vulnerable, shocking though such an injustice will be.

What is at stake is nothing less than Britain’s democracy, and the peoples’ right to control over the nation’s finances.

Together with the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. George Papandreou, I am going to give evidence to the EU’s Special Committee on the Financial Crisis in Brussels this Thursday, March 18th.

So today’s leaked report from the EU, arguing that Labour’s plans for cuts to public spending are not “ambitious enough”, has got me really het up.

Labour, it appears, is just not ambitious enough about its goals for cutting investment and exacerbating unemployment. It does not have punitive enough targets for cutting benefits to the poor and services for the mentally ill and frail.

In the “imbecile idiom” (to quote Keynes) of today’s financial fashion, the EU, it seems, would prefer for unemployment to rise, for people to live in hovels, and for government “to shut out the sun and the stars” – so that we conform to an arbitrary number set in Frankfurt by a group of bankers, under a pact unwisely signed by an earlier British government.

Continue reading the article…

There has been much sturm and drang generated by the Guardian and others on the threat posed to government finances by the flawed and often irrational rating agencies, and by the supposedly despotic, vengeful and greedy bond markets.

Methinks they protest too much.

We at the Green New Deal group have long argued that there is no reason why governments should rely for their financing on the capricious private bond markets. Instead, we write in ‘The Cuts Won’t Work’ -  finance ministers should oblige the banks in which taxpayers have a substantial stake to lend to the Treasury at very low rates of interest.

That’s how World War II was largely financed in Britain – and no one was the worse for it. The loans were given a title: Treasury Deposit Receipts.  These TDRs – bless them – financed a war that saved Britain from the threat Nazism posed to its very existence. Today they could be used to finance the public investment needed to substitute for the collapse in private investment – and to stave off the threat posed by climate change.

Analysts on the Financial Times Lex column (FT 1st January, 2010) have obviously read our latest report, and describe our proposal as “an intriguing alternative” . Governments they write “may lean on the commercial banks in which they hold large stakes to take up the strain instead. Forcing them to purchase government bonds would help replace the market heft of central banks.”

Quite so. You read it first in the Green New Deal.

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

Dan Roberts has a great column in the Guardian today. He asks the right questions. First, why is the Treasury spending £8 billion of taxpayers money reinflating the housing market? Second, why is the Treasury encouraging this now nationalised bank to increase mortgage lending, when the productive sector of the economy – companies, small businesses et al – are being starved of loans from taxpayer-bailed-out-banks, or else having to borrow at usurious rates?

A superb report from the Centre for Research on Socio Cultural Change at Manchester  (“An alternative report on UK banking reform”) suggests the answer: The nationalisation of Northern Rock is being treated as an “equity style turn around”, with the overarching objective of protecting and creating value for the taxpayer as shareholder.

“It is not clear whether the banks have been nationalised or the Treasury has been privatised as a new kind of investment fund.”

It makes perfect sense doesn’t it, given that the Treasury is advised on these matters (some would say it has been captured) almost exclusively by bankers? Get reading the CRESC report -its excellent -  the first piece of independent, academic thinking on reform of the banking sector to have crossed my path.