Showing posts with label melt-down. Show all posts
Showing posts with label melt-down. Show all posts

Friday, March 12, 2010

The Return Of Depression Economics


Stick to something lighter like this

Tyler has been listening on his trusty iPod to a rather depressing collection of ditties. They comprise three lectures given last year at the LSE by Prof Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, left-leaning NY Times columnist, and author of The Return of Depression Economics. And if it's depression you want, this is for you.

Krugman is immensely well informed, and very persuasive. But his economic prescriptions are based on the never ending growth of Big Government.

One of his key messages is that the world as currently constituted has a structural glut of savings. China and most other points East save far too much, and unless someone else spends to fill the gap, the global economy will sink into the abyss of a new Great Depression.

Of course, until 2007, the gap was filled by high spending punters in the US, the UK, Ireland, Greece and all the other usual suspects. But their spending was fueled by wobbling unsustainable balloons of debt, and when the bubble burst, their spending collapsed.

So governments - essentially western governments - have had to step in. Keynesian deficit spending has been exhumed from the vault, dusted off, and put back to work. Government 1, Markets 0. And a good thing too, suggests Krugman.

But what about all the debt our governments are now accumulating? Isn't he worried about that?

Well, no, not really. Debts on the current scale are entirely manageable, and their interest costs small. Anyway one day, something will happen to get someone else to pick up the spending slack - say, a surge in green investment - and governments can start to reduce their debts. Kind of idea.

Hmm.

As we've blogged many times, the debt interest burden dropped onto us taxpayers by HMG is already starting to look ugly. From a bill of £31.5bn this year, the Treasury itself forecasts it will more than double to £71.5bn by 2014-15. Actually, the Treasury refused to divulge this alarming figure - even when formally requested to do so by the Treasury Select Committee - but the IFS has devised a cunning way to back out the Treasury's debt interest projections from the information that HMT does publish (see footnote 7 on page 192 of the IFS Green Budget).

Here's how it looks right from year zero - the moment Brown took the fiscal helm:


Now, in fairness, for his first decade debt interest costs remained pretty well behaved. Indeed, as Jeff Randall reminds us this morning, Prudence Brown positively used to crow about it. In 1998 he was lambasting his spendthrift Tory predecessors, telling Randall:
"Interest payments on the national debt are £25 billion a year. We're spending more on national debt repayment than on schools or law and order, and that is a situation I don't want as a hallmark of a Labour government... The public borrowing requirement was £23 billion last year. We plan to get it down very substantially."
But as time went by, the continued good behaviour of interest costs was less a reflection of Brown's prudence, and more an automatic response to the big fall in gilt yields since the 70s, 80s and early 90s. That fall meant that when old high coupon debt matured on Brown's watch, it could be refinanced at much lower rates, bringing down interest payments. And yes, Bank of England independence did help that process by reassuring the markets about future inflation, but the key driver was the worldwide fall in yields - partly driven of course by Krugman's global savings glut. It had little to do with Brown's prudence, let alone his financial acumen.

And just so we know, HMT's projected increase in annual debt interest costs of £40bn between now and 2014-15 is the equivalent of 10 pence on the standard rate of income tax. 10 PENCE.

Or to put it another way, it's another £1600 of additional taxes for every single household every single year.

And actually there's worse. The Treasury's debt interest forecast assumes that HMG's borrowing costs stay pretty much where they are now - around 4.5%. But in the real world, that's highly unlikely. Gilt yields (ie the interest rate the goverment has to pay) have already ratcheted up by around one percent from their lows last year, and look set to move higher:


So what happens if yields move higher than HMT is assuming?

According to their own forecasts they are going to borrow a net £700bn between now and 2014-15. Add in the need to refinance £200bn of maturing gilts, and they will be borrowing a gross £900bn. Which means that every one percentage point increase in the interest rate they have to pay will, by the end of the period, add £9bn pa to annual debt interest costs.

Now, of course nobody knows how much gilt yields may rise from their current 4.5%, but as we've mentioned before, during the last real funding crisis back in the 70s they got as high as 17.5%. And even if they only went up to half that level, Tyler's fag packet says debt interest costs would exceed £100bn pa by 2014-15. Which would be a £70bn pa increase from current levels, or an additional £2,800pa tax for every single family.

You see, that's the trouble with listening to Paul Krugman and his fellow Big Government economics laureates. They are so incredibly provocative that you end up being forced to examine the facts again. But all that does is to remind you just how grim our public finances are now looking. And how these guys now hold so much sway in the corridors of power, that we seem powerless to save ourselves before the whole wobbling blancmange implodes again.

Depression economics.

Tyler will be replacing Krugman with something more upbeat. Morrisey maybe. Or Leonard Cohen's Greatest Hits.

Monday, October 19, 2009

No Safe Way Down


Recently, Mr and Mrs T nearly traded up to a new house. It came on to the market in early summer and the Tylers made what they considered to be a most reasonable offer in these post-apocalypse days - to wit, 16% below the asking price.

The offer was rejected outright. The owners said at that price, they'd rather not sell at all.

Several months went by, and no other offers emerged. To show willing, the Tylers even nudged up their own offer a few percent. But the sellers remained adamant - our price or no price.

Which was really rather odd, given the property's price history. Because our researches on Mouseprice had immediately revealed that the owners had pitched their price 35% above what they themselves had paid just four years ago. Whereas the overall price increase for the general area had been less than 5% (a BIG UP followed by a BIG DOWN). Sure, they'd made one or two improvements, but nothing like enough to account for the difference.

So the Tylers decided to sit tight and let the mortgage famine do its work on the sellers.

Then, guess what - all of a sudden, another offer appeared, very close to the asking price. "Are they good for the money?" asked Tyler of the agent. "Oh yes, that's not going to be a problem - they're currently in a rental and he's in the City", the agent smirked. The Tylers politely declined the invitation to counterbid.

So there we are. The City is back in bonusland, and the housing market is back on the razz.

According to Rightmove, property asking prices are surging again. Fueled by bonus talk, London prices are now actually higher than they were during the 2007 peak. Which sounds absolutely stark raving.

WTF's going on?

You don't really need me to tell you, but I will anyway.

The lowest interest rates since the dawn of creation is what's going on. There is zero incentive to hold savings in cash and the money is rushing back into property.

And not just property of course. Money is also scrabbling back into the equity markets (eg unit trust sales are right back up). The FTSE is up 50% from its lowpoint and back to pre-crash levels.

Now, as regular readers will know, we are very concerned about all this - and not just because the Tylers lost their new house. It's all very well slashing interest rates and printing money in the immediate face of a meltdown, but how is the Bank of England going to get us back onto a sustainable footing? How is it going to find a safe exit? And how do we avoid a return to 70s style inflation?

In this morning's FT there's an excellent article by Wolfgang Münchau asking the same questions. Noting that the current run-up in asset prices has all the hallmarks of another bubble, he says:

"Our present situation can give rise to two scenarios – or some combination of the two. The first is that central banks start exiting at some point in 2010, triggering another fall in the prices of risky assets. In the UK, for example, any return to a normal monetary policy will almost inevitably imply another fall in the housing market, which is currently propped up by ultra-cheap mortgages.

Alternatively, central banks might prioritise financial stability over price stability and keep the monetary floodgates open for as long as possible. This, I believe, would cause the mother of all financial market crises – a bond market crash – to be followed by depression and deflation.

In other words, there is danger no matter how the central banks react. Successful monetary policy could be like walking along a perilous ridge, on either side of which lies a precipice of instability.

For all we know, there may not be a safe way down."


No safe way down.

Hmm.

Don't like the sound of that.

Although we do take some comfort from the fact that whichever of Münchau's two precipices we plunge down, the Tylers will be better off without their new house. May the Lord have mercy on its new winner's-cursed owners.

Stay solvent.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Comrade Commissar Gordon Chernenko


Entertaining piece by Matthew Parris this morning, in which he highlights the striking similarity between Gordo's cadaverous appearance yesterday, and Konstantin Chernenko, one of those life-support leaders the Soviets had immediately pre-Gorbachev (we'll gloss over the fact that two of Matt's most entertaining paras were lifted word for word straight out of Wiki, without attribution - albeit with quote marks).

And when you look at it, the parallels are eery.

Both Comrade C and Comrade B are zombies leading zombie governments. Both are at the helm only because no "colleague" has the guts to offer an alternative. Both are ineffectual and increasingly ludicrous figureheads propped up (literally in C's case) by Politburo colleagues. Comrade C lasts just a year before finally keeling over, and Comrade B only has a year left before he too keels.

As the year progresses, Comrade C becomes so weak he's rarely seen in public. His big set-piece speeches are written and delivered by someone else. At the annual Red Square march past, he is visible only because he's been secured to a hatstand atop the Lenin Mausoleum. But the Big Hat itself, complete with masses of gold braid, is being worn by the man who gives the leader's speech - the man who is the power behind the throne, the loathed and much feared Comrade Commissar Petrov Mandelsonski:




Are we having fun yet? (Comrade C is the second stiff from the left)

Leaders who cling on to power by shooting their opponents are one thing. Leaders who cling to power by being lashed to the hatstand are something else entirely.

PS On Any Questions one of the State Dumblebees asked Caroline Spelman why Gordo needed to call an election just because he's wildly unpopular - after all the Evil Thatch hadn't, and she was evil. Unfortunately, Spelman missed the correct answer, and wittered instead about Thursday's elections. The correct answer is - altogether now - Mrs T had been elected and therefore had a mandate. Brown - just like Chernenko - has no mandate whatsoever.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Cabinet Reshuffle In Full


A masterly reshuffle to weather any storm

Faster than Sky, the full sp is as follows:

Chancellor - no change
Foreign Sec - no change
Home Sec - The Postman
Berr - no change
Justice - no change
Schools - no change
Defra - no change
DWP - Lord Sugar
Defence - Lord Kenneth Livingstone
Communities Got Talent - Lord Simon Cowell
Health - that bloke off Casualty as soon as we can remember what he's called

That's it.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Juglers And Tightrope Walkers


Hello, this is No 10

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Then, according to Thomas Salmon in his Chronological Historian (1723):
"[Cromwell] commanded the Speaker to leave the Chair, and told them they had sat long enough, unless they had done more good, crying out You are no longer a Parliament, I say you are no Parliament. He told Sir Henry Vane he was a Jugler [sic]; Henry Martin and Sir Peter Wentworth, that they were Whoremasters; Thomas Chaloner, he was a Drunkard; and Allen the Goldsmith that he cheated the Publick: Then he bid one of his Soldiers take away that Fool's Bauble the mace and Thomas Harrison pulled the Speaker of the Chair; and in short Cromwell having turned them all out of the House, lock'd up the Doors and returned to Whitehall."

Juglers, whoremasters, swindlers... it could be straight from today's Telegraph.

The first time Tyler heard Cromwell's famous quote bandied about was in early March 1974. It was the weekend following the Who Rules Britain? election, and Heath was desperately trying to cling on, despite having narrowly lost. He reckoned that, since neither he nor Wislon had an overall majority, if he could fill a room with enough smoke he could maybe do a grubby deal with the Libs and stay (cf the perils of PR).

What he'd failed to understand was that he'd lost his moral authority. He'd asked the country to back him against the miners, and the country had declined. He couldn't possibly stay.

But this time through it's a hundred times worse.

At least Heath had once had some moral authority. At least he'd once been elected.

And at least he had a broadly stable cabinet - even if his Chancellor was Anthony Barber.

And at least his MPs weren't mired in sleaze.

In fact, as far as we can tell, there are only two similarities between Heath and Gordo:

  1. Weirdness - neither could laugh/smile without scaring people
  2. Economic meltdown - both stoked up unsustainable booms that turned to devastating bust.
Ah yes, the economy. Out here, those pressing economic issues have not gone away.

Sure, as we blogged yesterday, the Juglers of Big Government are congratulating themselves on averting the Second Great Depression (Martin Wolf adds his congratulations in this morning's FT). But even setting aside the distinct possibility that a Second Great Depression was never on the cards in the first place, the question we are all asking now is what happens next?

What are we going to do about our looming fiscal crisis? As we've blogged many times, the government's fiscal sums simply do not add up, and on current plans we are heading for the IMF and years of no growth misery - just like we got post-Heath, only ten times worse.

And what are we going to do about our looming inflation crisis? Everybody knows how high fiscal deficits and near-20% pa monetary growth play out - inflation goes through the roof. Even those, like Martin Wolf, who support the fiscal splurge can see that:

"People need to believe that the extraordinarily aggressive monetary and fiscal policies of today will be reversed. If they do not believe this, there could well be a big upsurge in inflationary expectations long before the world economy has recovered. If that were to happen, policymakers would be caught in a painful squeeze and the world might indeed end up in 1970s-style stagflation.

...policymakers are walking a tightrope: on one side are premature withdrawal and a return to deep recession; on the other side are soaring inflationary expectations and stagflation"

A very tricky balance... especially when you understand that the fiscal and monetary tightrope is even narrower than it was back in the 70s.

Our government borrowing is much higher than when Heath got kicked out. In 1974-75, borrowing was 6.5% of GDP, only about half the projected 12.4% for this year. And monetary growth is at least as high - in 1974 it was running at 14% pa, compared to 17.4% currently (M4).

So just to recap, we are on an economic tightrope. It is approximately 2mm wide, and we cannot see the other side. Our tightrope walker is actually a clown - the very one who got us up here in the first place. He has zero authority, moral or otherwise, and even his custard pies don't work properly. He's "supported" by a disintegrating, discredited troupe of performing seals (incredibly, another cabinet member has resigned just in the time it's taken to write this post).

Enjoying the show?

PS At what point does the cabinet become non-quorate? Can Brown even make it to tomorrow's election? Do postmen know anything about tightrope walking? And please can I have my money back?