Category Archives: Politics

The Great Pensions Con

Economics, Politics, , ,

20131030-151742.jpg

Daily Express was lauding the government’s action to reduce the charges companies can levy on pensions as a great a great deal for pensioners. Taking the government’s figures at face value, The Daily Express seems right, if a fee of 1% reduces a savers’ pension pot by £130,000, capping that fee at 0.75% will greatly increase the value of their pension. However while action to tackle the high fees levied on pensions is very desirable it is ignoring the real problem with British private sector pensions. What matters is not the money value of the pension in 40 years time, buts it real value, can that pension sustain the pensioner in their desired standard of living in forty years time? Unfortunately given the way the pension industry is run run at present for most people it is very unlikely that will happen.

What the government fails to understand is that pensions that are paid in forty year’s time are paid out of the national income in forty years time. If the economy has undergone a period of sustained and real growth pensions can be quite generous, if however the growth is largely illusory, that is an inflationary expansion in national income, even the most generous of incomes will be quite miserly in terms of their purchasing power. Pension fund managers unfortunately aim for the rapid illusory short term monetary increase in the fund as it is this that determines their bonuses and income.

Rather than being put into investments that will increase real economic growth, pension funds are invested in a whole host of short term speculative ventures. Whenever there is a takeover mooted, one large source of funds is always the pension funds. Evidence shows that takeovers yield little real growth but a instead a source of funds for the buyer. One example is the former electrical giant GEC that squandered its cash on buying over priced technology companies that proved worthless when the dot com bubble burst, leaving GEC bankrupt. More usually the profitable assets in the taken over company are sold off which increases the money value of the pension fund but it is not matched by any increase in real income. There is another illusory source of pension fund growth. Fund managers lend to private equity firms, who are brilliant at maximising income for themselves but not there clients. They operate a ‘2 and 20’ rule. A fee of 2% is levied on the money handled and of the venture is profitable they take 20% of the profit made. Pension funds being a convenient cash cow for everybody but pensioners. There is not one speculative venture that is not funded without pension fund money. Consequently these funds can show rapid growth in their monetary values, but which is not matched by any real growth in national income.

Perhaps the most pernicious of fund managers practices, is their habit of lending their shares, for a fee of course, to speculators these speculators can then sell these borrowed shares to force down the price of the shares in the company they borrowed. They then buy shares at the new lower price to sell on in place of those they borrowed. Their profit is the difference between the price at which they sold and that at which they bought. Why fund managers do what is obviously an action detrimental to the fund is a mystery. Obviously they hope in some way to make a profit from this speculative venture. Do they mimic the actions of the ‘naked short seller’? This speculative activity does not represent a responsible investment policy to maximise future returns for the fund. Playing silly games with money is not a sensible investment strategy.

Lending the funds shares to financial traders for speculation, does not suggest that pension funds are in the best of hands.

A responsibly managed pension fund would be an asset to the British saver, whereas an irresponsibly managed one is not. There are examples of well managed pension funds but few are British. Although it not called such the responsibly managed Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is an example. In Norway the government has invested the proceeds from oil into a fund which invests in real as opposed to money assets around the world. Some of this money is invested in the British infra structure, investments that will continue to earn money for the Norwegians into the indefinite future, money that will finance Norwegian spending on welfare. Dubai has invested its money into buying real assets the British ports and the P&O shipping line. Assets that will continue to earn money when their oil incomes diminish. There is very little such foresight shown in the British pension industry.

One of the main reasons for both the Labour and Coalition governments promoting these new workplace pensions, is the prospect of being able to reduce the cost of the state pension. What they hope is that an increased workplace pension will increasingly supplement an ever diminishing state pension. There is nobody so naive or foolish as the British politician who believes in the promises of the finance industry. Despite all the scandals and failures within this industry they continue to believe that they will deliver on private pensions, when evidence demonstrates the contrary.

20131030-151742.jpg

Why London so resembles 18th Versailles. The danger of an over large and over powerful courtier class.

20131029-170004.jpg

When I think of courtiers I always think of the court at Versailles of Louis XIV, a glittering assembly of notables that led 18th century France into ruin and revolution. The courtier in the medieval kingdoms had a role, they were the intermediary between the absolute monarch and the people. They were the conduit between the king and people. If you wanted to access the king it would be through one of the notables at court. These notables would keen the king informed of events in the country so enabling him to effectively react to unfavourable events in the country, forestalling foreign invasion threats. The same notables, as trusted confidents of the king, could be employed in key administrative posts to ensure the effective governance of the country. Under kings such as Richard I, Edward III and Henry V the system worked well. It was the notables who made the personal governance of one man effective. The one flaw in the system was the dependence on personality of the king, a king such as Edward II who chose his courtiers badly could bring the country into chaos. Rule by courtier was perhaps the only effective means of governance in the largely illiterate and divided countries of the medieval era, but in the modern complex society of countries such as late 18th century France, it had become dysfunctional.

The noble courtiers of late 18th century France who demanded and got a monopoly of governance prevented effective governance of that country. Despite their vast wealth they resisted any tax on their wealth, which would have solved the chronic budgetary crisis’s, resulting from a century’s long warfare with most countries in Europe. Not unlike the super wealthy in today’s Britain they demanded exemption from tax on themselves, instead preferring to shift the burden of taxation on to the less well off majority. Courtier governance inevitably failed and the revolution of 1789 initiated a new era of governance. It is to this class of dysfunctional courtier class that the current class of consultants compare.

What they both share in common is the belief in their right to direct government policy and the right to exact a large fee for the privilege of employing them. Possibly the best example of the new courtier class in action can be taken from the privatisation of Royal Mail. Numerous investment banks advised on the privatisation of Royal Mail, luminaries of the financial world such as Goldman Sachs and Lazards. Estimates for the charges made by these banks are £30 million. Not only did the banks profit from the charges made for their financial advice but they also benefitted from being awarded 30% of the initial share offer. Since the banks that advised on the price for the sale of the Royal Mail were also those entitled to the right to buy a significant part of the shares in the newly privatised Royal Mail they were not going to set a share price that would involve them in a loss. One estimate in The Guardian newspaper suggested that these companies made a gain of £28 million on the shares they purchased, in the initial days after the sale. While Lazard’s advised the government that a valuation of £3.3 billion was the right price at which to privatise the Royal Mail another bank J.P. Morgan had suggested a valuation of £10 billion. All that can be said that at a valuation of £3.3 billion the advising banks made a substantial profit.

It is not unfair to suggest that the class of consultants as with the courtiers at Versailles are an expensive hinderance to good governance. Governments have acquiesced in the demands of the various classes of consultants to have an increasingly large say in government policy making. It is impossible to think of a single policy that does not bear the imprint of the various members of the class of financial and political consultants. The construction of HS2 has not started but already millions has been paid to financial consultants on the project. In a written reply to the MP Cheryl Gillan, the Minister for Transport admitted that £253.23 million has already been spent on the project. While no figure is given for the cost of consultant’s fees, it is right to assume that they accounted for a substantial part of the £1/4 billion costs. This is on a project that may never even be started. The 19th ‘railway king’ and fraudster George Hudson, who was responsible for constructing much of the railway system in the middle nineteenth century, at least in return for his thievery left behind at least a 1000 miles of railway. He would if alive today would be admiring of the inventiveness of the way in which the class of consultants can legitimately make rip off the state and yet give so little in exchange for their services.
The aristocrats of the Court of Versailles effectively obstructed any policy measures that were not in their interest so obstructing the effective governance of the country. What happened was bloody revolution in which some members of this class lost their lives and most all their wealth. A dysfunctional group such as the consultant class which acts as an increasing expensive barrier to good governance should not be able to continue to dominate the process of government policy making. However this is to ignore the nature of financial consultancy. Although they are courtiers who dance attendance on the courts of Westminster and Whitehall, unlike the notables at the court of Louis XIV they have real power as they are the financial ‘shakers and movers’ who dominate the contemporary political scene.

The influence of these financial ‘courtiers’ is best seen in the government’s policy towards tax avoidance. Governments have constantly called on the investment bankers for financial advice, including revenue collection. It is hard to avoid the view that much of this advice is self interested. George Osborne recently had a statute put into law which made it much easier to avoid tax. If the business claimed that the money earned in the UK was really revenue earned by a subsidiary company in a tax haven, they could avoid tax on those earnings. What can never be known is when does advise giving slip over into policy making. The relaxed attitude that HMRC has towards tax avoidance by powerful business corporations, suggests that these financial advisers do more than just advise.

Effective governance can only be restored as in 18th France with a political revolution. Such a revolution need not be bloody, it could be a constitutional revolution. A start could be made in the insistence of transparency in government policy making. All these policy decisions that seemingly are designed to be of benefit only to the class of consultants would be open to scrutiny and as such likely to be less damaging to the public interest. This should only be a start what is further needed is a reform of the system of choosing government so independent minded politicians are chosen as our leaders. What is needed is an end to the love affair between Westminster and the City of London.

20131029-170004.jpg

The Cart Tracks of History or why Social Democracy in Europe was so short lived

Economics, Politics, society

20131025-111454.jpg

Hannah Arendt when writing about the Russian revolution, stated that societies were doomed to follow in the cart tracks of history. What she was trying to do was explain why Russia that despite the other throw of an oppressive authoritarian government in 1917, had only a brief interlude of parliamentary democracy before Russia reverted to an authoritarian government. Her answer was that Russian society had been schooled in authoritarian instincts throughout the long period of Tsarist rule. All institutions in society were structured along authoritarian lines, people instinctively looked for direction from above and these habits were not easily thrown off. It was the democratic revolution that was alien to Russian society. The seamless evolution of the Tsarist police into the communist secret police, the Cheka, demonstrates how hard it was for a reforming government to throw of the ingrained instincts of centuries.

Since reading Arendt, I have puzzled as to what are the cart tracks of history that UK society is trapped within. Our cart tracks are inequality, social inequality is hard wired into UK society. There was a brief period of Social Democracy in the middle of the twentieth century, but I fear that it will appear as fleeting as the brief period as that of Russian Social Democracy in 1917. What I mean by inequality is a society in which a small privileged group maintains it extreme wealth through impoverishing the rest of society. This group realises that only by denying the majority a fair share of national income can they reserve a disproportionate of national income for themselves.

Economists talk of scarcity when they discuss the means by which society can distribute its wealth to maximise welfare. They believe that only market economy allocate scarce resources in the way that maximises the welfare of all. In the market economy the individual can choose to spend their income as they wish and as only they know their individual wants and desires, they are best placed to maximise their own welfare. If the state interferes by providing say a national health service, it is denying the individual that freedom of choice. They may wish as in the USA to choose what part of their income they devote to health care.

However this analysis is flawed, as it ignores the unequal distribution of income which denies many people the opportunity to exercise their freedom of choice.

Inequality of incomes means more than that some people are richer than others; it means an economy that structured to meet the needs of the well off minority, not those of the less well off majority. The mechanism through which this achieved is choice or in the terms of the economist, effective demand. It is through exercising their extra or excessive purchasing power that they can ensure that the productive capacity of the country is skewed towards serving their interests. An increasingly disproportionate share of this country’s resources are being diverted into producing goods for the super rich. Rolls Royce, Jaguar businesses that supply the super rich are expanding their production, while mass market car manufacturers such as Ford are cutting theirs. It’s the zero sum game, by ensuring that a decreasing share of the national wealth goes to the majority (through falling real wages), they can ensure an ever increasing share of national wealth for themselves.

The housing market exemplifies this trend. Recently a spokesman for a country houses association, spoke about the revival of market in grand country homes. It is no coincidence that this has coincided with a marked decline in the provision of housing for the majority. In England a total 117,190 houses were built in the 12 months prior to September 2012, this compares to the high of 1968 when 425,830 public sector housing units were completed and in which the number of private sector housing units completed were 226,100. The 1960’s were a period of the decline of the grand country house. Many were sold by their owners for commercial use, some converted into flats and the best transferred to National Trust. Evidence suggests that in the UK that housing is the ultimate zero sum game, grand houses for the rich or houses for the majority, but not both.

As an increasingly larger share of national income is going to the well off minority, their refusal to pay taxes has a catastrophic effect on government finances. There are hundreds of tax avoidance schemes available to enable wealthy individuals and business corporations to avoid tax. One accountant estimated that it is possible for a business corporation to pay as little as 2% of its income as tax. Consequently the central government is facing a funding crisis, the proportion of national income that it receives as income from taxation is going down. This is worsened by there being a growing population (particularly of the elderly) which exerts even greater demands on the public sector for services. Given this funding crisis the only solution is to cut services and it is these services that are used by the less well off majority. The wealthy are unaffected by this crisis as they have chosen to opt out of public service provision. In fact it is in their interest to cut spending on health and education services, as it will make possible further tax cuts. Galbraith had a phrase which summed up the current situation, ‘public squalor’ and ‘private affluence’.

This robbery of the private and public purse has to be disguised by an ideology, an ideology that turns a series of squalid ignoble actions into the opposite. The ideology that justifies this robbery is that of celebrity and entrepreneurship, an ideology of achievement. Celebrity is first and foremost an ideology of achievement, the story of the young man from an impoverished background who achieves riches as a famous footballer or the young woman from a similar background who achieves success as a singer. Nobody can deny that they have made their success through there own efforts. However the ideology conflates these stories of individual achievement into a story of achievement which justifies the extreme incomes of the super rich The talent of these individual cannot be denied but what can be denied is their claims to excessive wealth. No individual in entertainment or sport earns the wealth they attain. Society is instead so structured to pay excessively high rewards to certain high achieving individuals. Celebrity has diminished the achievement element for high reward incomes, now it’s sufficient to be a celebrity. Entrepreneurship trades in on the achievement effort, they are meant to be the great movers and shakers who have changed society. Unfortunately all the change many of these movers and shakers achieve is to damage the host society in which they operate. Hedge funds and private equity funds often do little more than loot the company they own and manage. No matter the achievement myth justifies such excessive wealth taking.

Nothing can change without an ideology to counter the achievement myth used to justify the unparalleled wealth of these elites. Religion is one possible counter ideology, an ideology of fairness and charity. There was liberation theology of South America, which however was crushed by the Catholic Church. The social and financial elites retain their control of the Catholic Church. What is not needed so much is not a counter ideology as there are plenty circulating within society, as a social crisis which robs the dominant ideology of its legitimacy and causes a crisis of confidence in the ruling elites. One such past crisis was the Great Depression and the Second World War, which robbed the dominant elite groups of their legitimacy. Having presided over a series of disasters they were powerless to prevent the rise of social democracy. Already the current financial crisis has given rise to new political groupings that threaten the legitimacy of the ruling groups. Usually they are groups of the Far Right, but there are some of the Far Left, both of which threaten the existing order. In Greece there is ‘The Golden Dawn’ and on the left Syriza both new parties representing those excluded from the old elites. It is forgotten that in the end Hitler turned on his aristocratic allies, murdering a number of the officer corp and creating a new army the SS to replace the old aristocratic dominated Germany army.

Unfortunately the ruling elite groups in Europe have the same level of competence as those pre war politicians who were unable to prevent the Great Depression or the war. Catastrophic as both events were, they cleaned the Augean stables of power and a new generation of politicians created a better world. The crisis that is likely to overwhelm the European political leaders is the next financial crisis. Little has been done to remove the flaws in the economy that created the last crisis. London is leading the European Titanic towards the financial iceberg. Although there have been some reforms of the banking system, nothing has been done to change to the financial markets to prevent them from yet again turning a crisis into a catastrophe. New technology systems in fact make it far likelier a greater crash than that of 2008 will occur in the near future, as recent developments in computerised equity trading have the potential to turn small downturns in equity prices to catastrophic downturns.

Is it wrong to characterise the European political leadership as a group of lemmings leading their societies towards the precipice of financial disaster.

Housing: an example of the misuse of government policy

Economics, Politics, society, , , , , ,

I realised that on reading my essay through there was a repetition of themes in my writing. It is not the bad behaviour of the banks that drive me to write, but the attempt to explain why, in spite of the economy growing have we all become poorer, that is apart from a tiny elite. When I started work in the 1960’s there was full employment and everybody had the benefit of being housed well. Now that world has disappeared and neither of the last two statements are true. Why? I think an analysis of the housing market explains how this change occurred. When what was once seen as a necessity of the good life housing, is now seen as a commodity to be exchanged on the money markets. There has been a devaluation of human life.

After years of housing booms and busts it is impossible to believe that governments once took action to suppress house price bubbles. Their intention was to keep house prices at affordable levels. All these controls on the price of houses were scrapped by the Conservative governments of 1970 and 1979. Now the governor of the Bank of England is talking again of reintroducing such regulations to rein in future housing price bubbles.

The ending of any controls was in part a consequence of a long campaign by the banks and the rest of the financial community that chafed at any controls that limited their ability to make money. They could guarantee negative press headlines about credit squeezes, so making their cessation much easier. one phrase coined at the time of controls, was mortgage famine. The public were easily persuaded to that credit controls only had a negative impact. At the same time Social Democracy was going out of fashion in the political classes. This meant that controls and regulations that were an integral part of social democracy had to go. It was easy to claim that al the crisis’s of the 1970’s were consequent on having a Social Democratic system and the system that was the source of all our problems should be replaced by something better.

Why did the banks so hate directives and all the other controls that limited price inflation in the housing market? These self same banks at the same time campaigning for a control of inflation in the wider economy. The reason is quite simple, money was the asset in which bank’s traded and they wanted some stability in that commodity. Also inflation in the wider economy added to their costs, unlike house price inflation from which they could directly benefit.

What the banks wanted was the freedom to manipulate the housing market to benefit themselves. They wanted a rapid turnover of the housing stock at ever increasing prices. It was the activity of the usurer, buying and selling the same product over and over again at higher and higher prices. More houses were built each year but the number built fell far short of the ever increasing demand for them, so in it seemed as if same house was sold over and over again. The demand for houses was constantly pushed ever upward by the banks providing more and more money for ever higher mortgages. If this seems to be an over statement consider this example. I lived as a teenager in a small Sussex village and I can remember being told by an awestruck fellow villager in the mid 1960’s that certain new build houses were now selling for prices in excess of £3,500. Now such houses are selling for prices in excess of £250,000. The house in which I lived as a game keeper’s son was sold recently for a £1 million. I do not know how many times the houses on the village green changed hands.

Unfortunately the bankers greed led them to taking a series of foolish actions that led to the crash. In what were now the outdated building societies it was the savers money that was lent to out borrowers, but unfortunately relying upon savers meant that the money for loans was limited, much more was needed to finance the house price bubble. The banks had the solution which was to borrow on the wholesale money markets. If it had not been taken to extremes it would not have been a sound policy. The money borrowed had to be at a lower rate of interest than that lent out for mortgages to be profitable. Cheap money is that lent for short periods of time, sometimes for as short as overnight. To finance the ever expanding mortgage market the banks borrowed increasing large amounts of money from the short term money markets, while the banks lent out the same money for periods of up to 25 years. The banks were reliant on the short term money market to constantly replace the loans they repaid to finance their mortgage lending. Surprisingly this is not as irresponsible as it sounds, what was irresponsible was borrowing such disproportionate amounts in this way. The problem with financing mortgages in this way was that the profitability of such transactions is dependent on the price differential between money borrowed and money lent. The narrower the differential the less profitable was the mortgage business. At the height of the housing boom I was told by a banker that the banks did not make much money from the mortgage business. At first I was baffled, but I realised that the banks profit margins were being squeezed in two ways; first the huge demand for short term loans were forcing up the price (interest rates) of these loans and that competition in the mortgage market meant the banks could not increase their mortgage rates to compensate for higher loan charges for fear of losing customers to other lenders. Banks such as HBOS were having their profit margins squeezed and were at the same time over dependent on borrowed money. They were a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Banks such as HBOS depended for their survival on their ability to borrow billions on the short term finance markets to finance their mortgage trade. If they were denied those funds the bank would collapse. This happened in the period 2008 to 2009. The housing bubble burst and banks were suddenly unwilling to lend to each other, as they did not know which banks were financially viable. In the event no British bank was viable, but none were so indebted as HBOS. The rest of the story is well known, the government rescued the banks by giving them billions to keep them viable.

For the millions already impoverished by the banks playing the housing market it was a double whammy. Now not only did the ‘excluded’ have to pay exorbitant private high rents but they were further impoverished by the government’s austerity programme that reduced their incomes.

Having a nominally Social Democratic Party in power made no difference as Neo-Liberalism was so firmly entrenched as the governing political philosophy. Any action to regulate the banks to put them on a sound financial footing was deemed much worse than almost bankrupting the nation to bail them out. Without any justification the latter was deemed the better option as the default assumption is that the government is incompetent in economic matters and management of them such be best left to those ‘who know’, the bankers. It was no surprise when Gordon Brown appointed a banker, Lord Myner to clear up the mess left by other bankers.

Given that the financial sector seems to have effectively bought up Parliament; E.P. Thompson’s words are very prescient. He thought contemporary politicians are as corrupt and self interested as those of the eighteenth century. Parliament then was was part of the ‘old corruption’ in which the landed interest purchased control of government and he thought current parliaments should be viewed as part of the ‘new corruption’, as control of Parliament has been purchased by the financial interest, ‘the City of London’.

Unlike the majority of my fellow economists I believe than the solutions to economic problems lies with politics not economics. What is needed is political reform that removes the hands of ‘the City of London’ from around the throat of government.

Osborne-oenomics explained

Economics, Politics, society, , , , , , , , ,

Nietzsche’s dictum is that philosophers are in error because while they write about man they never study real man, only their idealised construction of him. They construct ethical systems but never look at the source of those ethical systems, man. He demonstrates how the concepts free will and moral responsibility are of little use in explaining human behaviour. His psychology demonstrates that much of human behaviour is pre-determined, it is their physiological makeup that determines people’s actions not rational thought. Criminal behaviour is more likely to derive from an individual’s biological drives which they cannot control than from conscious decision making. Commentators would do well when commenting on George Osborne’s economic policy to observe Nietzsche’s dictum. Most would see his policy being derived from his reading of the Neo-Liberal commentators of whom they assume he is familiar with. This ignores two key facts, one is that he studied history and probably had but a nodding acquaintance with Hayek etc. and that he is a son of a baronet and it is this latter fact which provides a key to understanding George Osborne.

The baronet is at the lowest level in the aristocratic pecking order and being aware of their nearness to the masses, they have always been the most zealous in defending their privileges of social rank. They are all too aware of what a fall from social grace means. It is these people who have provided the backbone of the Conservative party. The defence of their position often led them to developing the most reactionary of principles. Any improvement in the lot of the servile classes is a threat. A guest at the dining tables of the baronetcy would be aware of the servant problem. The insolence of the lower orders making them such poor servants and the difficulty of recruiting servants as most of the lower orders rejected a life of servitude.

The greatest threat was progressive taxation, particularly taxes on capital. The latter threatened their holdings of wealth and they saw around them the break up and disappearance of many large estates. The social order of which they were part seemed to be disappearing. Since social democracy is dependent on progressive taxation to fund its activities; they hated social democracy as it was that progressive tax system that threatened their existence. They also hated the public services which made such taxation necessary. One service that attracted their ire was the National Health Service. Why should they make such a large and disproportionate contribution to a service that they use but only occasionally. As they would resort to private health care so as to avoid contact with the masses. Is it at wonder that coming from such a background the guiding principle of all George Osborne’s policy is the destruction of what remains of the social democracy of former years? The privatisation and destruction the NHS being the iconic government policy that by which it will be known in history.

Self interest lies behind the desire for a small state, rather than the desire to free enterprise from the the burdens and regulations of the nanny state. A small state does not require large tax revenues to fund its activities. Any policy which shrinks the tax burden on the better off will meet the approval of a baronet’s son. Is not likely a man from his cultural back ground would want to cut taxes? It is no coincidence that one of the first acts of this government was to let Vodaphone of it’s £6 billion tax bill and it is now letting the self same company avoid tax on the multi billion profit from the sale of its shares in Verizon. Tax avoidance is no longer an activity to be discouraged by government but one to be encouraged by the Chancellor. He has decided that multi-nationals that have off shore subsidiaries can channel any profits they make in the UK through these subsidiaries to avoid tax.

One cannot underestimate the impact of the culture of the baronetcy on George Osborne’s thinking. Some members of this social grouping in the heyday of the Social Democracy feared their extinction through a loss of their wealth and position because of what they saw as a penal tax system. Growing up in the sixties on a country estate with family friends in service; I could not but be aware of how this group saw the state as the author of their misfortunes. Any society will suffer periodic crises and the UK society suffered from an economic crisis in the 1970’s culminating in the extraordinary high annual inflation rate of 1974 which topped 27% . It was the OPEC inspired rise in petrol prices which largely caused this spike in commodity prices which caused the high level of inflation. Taking advantage of the weakness of the state in this crisis, the political right forced/persuaded the government to adopt Neo-Liberal policies that would ultimately lead to the demise of the social democratic state.

It is probably no coincidence that the doyen of Neo-Liberals Joseph Schumpeter was an aristocrat. Neo-Liberalism as espoused by George Osborne is the guise through which the baronetcy and others wreaked their vengeance on social democratic state.

Why Ed Milliband will continue to disappoint

Economics, Politics, society, , , , , ,

Why Ed Milliband will continue to disappoint

This week at theTUC conference Ed Milliband promised to take action to end the blight of zero hours contracts which cruelly impact so many people’s lives. It was a speech of good intent which revealed little of specifics of any future policy. How did Ed propose who was going to end this problem? No specific details, just another promise left floating in the air not anchored in the firm ground of policy detail. The problem being for Ed is that he is part of that broad Parliamentary consensus that seeks to combine right of centre economic policy with a left of centre social policy, a tendency that can be identified as starting with John Major.

These politicians believed supply side economics, or what is more popularly called Neo-Liberalism, was necessary if Britain’s moribund economy was to be revived. He recognised that by adopting such a brutal free market economy there would be losers, but in order to create a flexible labour market the protections that secured fair wages and security of employment would have to be removed. This would mean that there would be a large part of the work force that would experience a combination of job insecurity and low wages, combined with a future of low wage employment punctuated by periods of unemployment. Essentially low cost workers who would be willing to work for whatever wages the employer was willing to offer. However he did recognise that there must be a social policy in place to pick up the pieces, that is a welfare state. A state that would offer unemployment and housing benefit for the losers in the labour market. It is this policy that made zero hours contracts possible.

A policy of ‘tough love’ was adopted to ensure that the low paid or unemployed would be willing to take whatever work was available. Benefits were to be so low as to make any work attractive and sanctions were introduced to make people work. This policy has been adopted with enthusiasm by Ian Duncan’s Smith Department of Work and Pensions. Recently it has been suggested by them, that the low paid will be penalised by further benefits cuts if they don’t make sufficient effort to secure a higher wage.

As if to add insult to injury, when elected New Labour promised to continue the policies of the consolidators but with more efficiency and fairness. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to introduce working tax credits, to top up the wages of the low paid. This wage subsidy enabled companies to keep costs low by continuing to pay wages that were so low as would otherwise have left workers in poverty. They also believed in the ‘stick’, they introduced welfare reform by setting up an assessment scheme run by Atos whose main purpose was to reduce the numbers on benefit by defining many of the formerly disabled as fit for work.

This unforgiving social policy is Ed Milliband’s heritage, the inheritance of an inhumane economic and social policy whose sole aim was to keep large numbers of people in poverty and living lives of misery. While he seems genuinely appalled at the misery and despair government policy creates, he realises that there is little he can do about it. He has inherited the belief that the British economy needs to be regenerated through free market reforms which will create millions of losers and few winners; so there is little he can do about ending the misery of zero hour contracts. While Andy Burnham has said that he will end the use of zero hour contracts in the NHS. There has been no such promise from Ed Milliband, he remains trapped within the cruel brutal Neo-Liberal ideology that allows him to make no more than gestures to improving the lot of the great mass of the British population. Yesterday’s debate in Parliament demonstrates this when he failed at Prime Minister’s Question Time to quiz David Cameron on the very critical report made by the UN Rapporteur on the impact of the ‘bedroom tax’, as Observers commented because he did not want to make a commitment to repealing it. While Ed Milliband remains committed to supply side economics and all the indifference to human suffering that implies, he will do little more than offer some amelioration of zero hours contracts. Whatever he might say, little will change.

Student loans, the bleak future for higher education

Economics, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Self financing has become the big principle that guides university education. Rather than the state funding higher education, it will be the students who will do so by paying fees. These fees to be financed by loans from the state. The constant background noise that accompanies these ‘new’ policies is that after years of overspending, the government has become so indebted that what has to be done is to cut government spending to balance the books. It has been stated so often and by so many authoritative people that it has been become one of the accepted truths of our culture. However it is not true, it just that a series of misapprehensions of the recent past have been manipulated by powerful groups in society to produce a climate of opinion that makes possible a remaking of the social order in their interest. They want a small state, whose relatives low cost will enable them to minimise their tax burden and use their huge tax free incomes to indulge in conspicuous over consumption.

Part of that remaking of society is the introduction of student loans. It is so familiar that it hardly needs repeating, but with increasing numbers of students attending university the old system of financing higher education was said to unaffordable. When Lord Browne in his report recommended increasing student fees to £9000 per annum, his understanding of the situation was never queried. Why did nobody see the fault in his analysis which implied that a system in which all tax payers contributed a small sum each to higher education was less affordable than a system in which a much smaller group (all current undergraduates) would each pay a much larger sum to finance higher education. Logic suggests that this policy might be fallacious, why can a few afford what the nation as a whole cannot?

Much was made of the fact that under this new system even these much larger monthly payments would be reasonable and easily affordable. Modest is one of these words which can mean many things to many people. Modest for an oil executive or well paid cabinet minister is not the same as modest for a young professional. Those I know repaying their loan would not use the word modest to describe their repayments.

The phrase ‘smoke and mirrors’ comes to mind when describing the governments student loan policy. It will be many years before student loan repayments make a substantial contribution to the funding of higher education. Total government spending on higher education will not decrease for many years as the increase in loan repayments will take a number of years to take effect. Will it be twenty or thirty years before we see student loan repayments making a substantial contribution to higher education funding? When will break even point be reached? Even the government recognises that there a problem and is increasing the interest payments made on new loans so as to increase the graduate contributions to funding education. What matters is not that it will take decades for the policy to become self funding, if ever, but that the government says it will happen. Appearance counts for everything, reality can be safely ignored. Particularly as an overwhelming right wing media are conveniently myopic when it comes to the implementation of their favourite policies.

With the increasing commercialisation of the university sector it is unlikely that £9000 pa will remain the maximum fees for university. Foreign students pay in excess of £20,000 per annum in fees. At this level of payment the universities earn a surplus/profit on each student; it cannot be long before the universities find some new reason to negotiate a further fees increase. Only the most naive can believe that fees will remain at this level for any length of time. Universities as they become increasingly commercialised will increasingly behave any other business. Can we expect the annual announcement of a fees rise as occurs in the rail industry?

There is another possibility and that is that the universities will cut costs to squeeze as much of a cash as they can out of each student. As the main costs faced by a university is staff costs, there is for the less scrupulous Vice Chancellor lots of opportunities to do this.They can reduce staff student contact time, increasingly using IT as a staff free teaching resource or increasing staff student ratios (given the possibilities offered by IT the 1000 plus lecture is feasible). For the enterprising Vice Chancellor the possibilities are endless. Less prestigious universities will possibly lower fees to attract students to keep up numbers so as to keep them viable. However the price to be paid for such low cost universities will be horrendous. Their financial viability will only be secured by economising on all those things that make university education desirable. Financial objectives will increasingly come to dominate in universities at the expense of educational objectives.

Of concern must be the fact that the new system of university finance will be managed by for-profit businesses. Already it is reported in the press that the government is considering selling off its student loans book to a private provider. These loans are at present interest free, to make them more attractive to a potential buyer the government is considering adding interest to these loans. The costs of administering the student loans system will be considerable. In the past the American health care system was considered as an example of how not to manage a health care system, as 40% of health care costs went into the management of the system. Now any cabinet minister would tell you that it was a price worth paying for the efficient delivery of health care at the point of delivery. What share of the proceeds of loan repayments will go to the managers of the student finances? Whatever it might be, it will diminish the contribution of loan repayments to the financing of higher education.

When the government sells student debt to for profit companies, it will have to do so in way that guarantees these companies a profit. The obvious way to do that will be to sell it at a discount. If the private company pays less than the market value of the student debt, it is guaranteed a profit in the event of a shortfall in repayments. Whatever deal the government has with private companies it can only diminish the contribution of loan repayments to the financing of higher education.

No mention has been made of the difficulties of collecting these loan repayments. Many graduates are highly mobile in terms of jobs and location. A maths graduate from Oxbridge might decide to work for a New York finance house, only returning to the UK at retirement age. Such a person would given the current rules avoid repaying any of their student loan. The commercial organisations managing the repayments system would be under an obligation not only to remain viable but to make a substantial return on their investment. The only way this could be achieved is to increase the costs of loan repayments on those who cannot avoid making repayments, that is those residing in the UK. The government has shown that it is not adverse to such an arrangement, as it is considering charging interest on what were formerly interest free loans.

The change in funding is claimed to be a revolution, as universities will now be independent of the government as they will depend in future from their income from their customers the students. What can be best described as the ‘free market fallacy’. With the universities no longer dependent on government funding, they will be free it is said from government dictates on curriculum and be able to set a curriculum that needs the needs of their students and the UK economy. There is the sting in the tail, they must meet the needs of the UK economy. Universities will be obliged to provide those courses that will guarantee the employability of their students. This explains why there is a large increase in business and business related courses and a decline in the humanities, the range of modern languages on offer is rapidly diminishing and subjects such as philosophy which have no business application are disappearing from the curriculum altogether. It is an attack on the enlightenment project, that of education for education’s sake.

The strings by which the government puppet masters control the universities will no longer be visible, but they will remain in place never the less.

This ‘realist’ government has said it is prepared to accept that universities may be allowed to go bankrupt, it wants the stiff winds of competition to weed out those weak universities that provide a poor quality education. One suspects that what the government means is those new universities that attract large numbers of non traditional lower income students which instead of teaching them useful vocational and employment skills teach subjects that fall within the ‘liberal education’ ethos. Government boasting about the opening of private universities that focus on providing vocational education at lower cost than traditional universities show the direction in which the coalition government want higher education move.

The change in the attitudes university education is reflected in the views of two contrasting philosophers. Michael Oakshott writing on education in the 1960′ s defined education as the initiation into new areas of experience and knowledge which was in contrast to Keith Joseph who 20 years later saw education as being limited to those subject areas that had economic utility. Rather than opening up young minds to new experiences Keith Joseph wanted to limit the experiences of young people to those that had economic utility. Fine arts to be replaced by accountancy etc. It is Keith Joseph thinking rather than that of Michael Oakshott that has dominated government policy towards the universities.

Government policy is characterised by naivety and ignorance of the world beyond the confines of Westminster and dining rooms of Notting Hill. They foresee an exciting future in which the universities freed from government control will compete against each other and that competition will drive up standards as the universities compete for students. Any cursory examination of the economy will demonstrate that free markets are dominated by a few big firms. There are not numerous suppliers engaged in fierce competition with each other. We speak of the ‘big four or five’ when speaking of the banks, supermarkets, energy suppliers etc. not the numberless independents. One of the economists claimed by the government to provide the evidence for their policy is J S Schumpeter, but one suspects that their reading of his books has not been very thorough. He writes that although markets start as competitive they end up as monopolistic, that is dominated by a few large suppliers. The most successful firms eliminate competition by either driving out of the market their less successful competitors or by absorbing them into their business. By freeing the university sector from government control and opening it up to market forces, there is no reason why the university market should not follow the pattern outlined by Schumpeter.

Already the government has unwittingly made moves to reducing competition in this sector. They have suggested that the most successful universities should set up an external degree system whereby their students study for their degrees in local outreach institutions, such as further education colleges. This outsourcing of degrees will undermine smaller local universities that lack the prestige and resources of the major universities resulting in a consolidation within the university sector as universities close.
The government has said it is prepared too see universities close. The assumption being that the high quality universities will prosper and expand. However this is to misunderstand the market system. One factor in attaining market dominance is quality of the product, others equally important factors such as cost efficiencies may have little to do with the quality of the product. What will happen is that the new private universities will be best placed to take advantage of the new opportunities. They are the most cost efficient, they offer the least cost degrees and have the marketing skills of a successful business institution. It could well be that they supplant Oxbridge and the Russell Group as the dominant players in the university market. What we are looking at to borrow an analogy from the grocery trade is a future dominated by the ALDI university.

If cost is to be the deciding factor university education for the majority of students will be changed. It will no longer be the three year course at some hallowed institution but a low cost course lacking most of the features associated with a high quality education. An out sourced degree course at an FE college will be considerably inferior to one undertaken at the well resourced home university.

Is ASDA another precursor of the future? It is planning to offer degree courses to its own staff. These degrees will be both vocational and low cost. The two criteria which the government believes are the two key criteria for university education.

What the government and its supporters fail to realise is that the market has its own logic. If the government is responsible for the direction of education that direction is open to debate and it is likely that university education will be directed towards achieving a variety of desirable goals, which at its best is education for education’s sake. However a market dominated system directed to maximising profit will focus on a narrow range of courses that maximise returns. If profit maximisation is to be attained by cost cutting all innovation will disappear as new ideas cost money and would be contrary to the least cost consensus that prevailed in universities. Already such changes can be seen in the university sector with the increasing proliferation of business studies courses, increasingly universities will teach ‘to do’ rather than ‘to think’. The uniform mediocrity imposed by the market will be a more successful suppressor of free thinking that any of the repressive institutions of the past. Cost is a far better censor than the Inquisition.

The Austerity Myth or the Great Lie

Economics, Politics,

The Austerity Myth or the Great Lie

I apologise for any typo’s as it was written in anger after George Osborne’s speech

There is a consensus amongst the governing classes and that the overriding crisis of our times is that of excessive government debt. No matter what the price to be paid in terms of rising unemployment, increasing poverty, there is not too a high price that can be paid for eliminating that debt. However unlike most myths which have some truth in them, this is one founded on the ‘Great Lie’. The real crisis that of over indebted banks and the high price that is paid to keep them in existence. In Europe and the UK that price is large scale unemployment amongst the young, in the UK 1 in 5 young people are unemployed and in Greece it is 1 in 2. Europe is sacrificing the futures of its young to preserve the wealth and status of a particularly unpleasant group of people, the bankers and the financial elite.

The media constantly reports on the growing national debt which had risen to 85.8% of GDP in March 2012. With an economically illiterate media, political elite and population it is easy to run scare stories about the dangers of such a large debt. The fact that this figure is not historically high, is temporary and the fact that high levels of such debt can coincide with periods of high growth as well as low growth is lost in a miasma of media untruths. What is never mentioned in the media is the high level of indebtedness of the UK banks. Paul Tucker in 2009 brought out a report suggesting that the debts of the banks equalled 5x the size of UK’s GDP, more recently Morgan Stanley suggested that figure was 6x the size of UK’s GDP. Critics have rubbished the latter figure suggesting its only 2x GDP. Since the banks have not ceased the reckless behaviour they indulged in before the crisis, I suspect a figure of 2x GDP is too low. What has happened is that the banks have successfully deflected the story from being one about the problem of massively over indebted banks to a focus of the less significant problem of government debt.

What is most surprising is that the best educated parliament in our history (a legislature dominated by graduates many with good degrees from the best universities) has never questioned this narrative, they have accepted the bankers story as the true one. There are interesting parallels with the past. Germany of the Weimar Republic had the best educated population, yet in fell prey to the follies of Nazism. What is interesting is the that intellectual elite in both countries fell for a brutualist philosophy, which derided the current morality of society as being a bar to progress. In Germany it was the philosophy of ‘sturm un drang’ and the moral scepticism of Nietzsche’s superman philosophy and in England the ‘Neo-liberalism of Hayek and Alyn Rand. What both taught was a contempt for the masses of humanity and a culture that pandered to their needs, a culture of weaklings. The superior beings who should dictate mankind’s future were Nietzsche’s superman, the ‘blond beast’ or Alyn Rand’s billionaires. Both of these types of super beings were denied their potential by a culture that denied them their place at the forefront of humanity. Rand even advocated the mass starvation and death of the millions of useless humanity. What these philosophies created was an ethical waste ground, where a mass murderer could become leader or one in which predatory financiers could thrive by looting businesses of their wealth, making thousands unemployed and yet be lauded as successful kings of finance. What the Nazis wanted was to remake their nation as a dynamic state which under the leadership of the Aryan supermen, would come first in the competition between nations. Neo-liberals similarly wanted to revitalise English culture by destroying the welfare state and the culture of dependency it engendered. For the Germans the superman was the SS Officer and for the Neo – Liberals it is the financier, both would remake society the first through violence and the second through financial muscle. Since the British Parliament is largely drawn from the intellectual elite, who see financiers as the saviours of British society they could not comprehend why the banking system failed, they were all too willing to put it down to a once in a life time crisis caused by events external to the UK and not the greed, incompetence or recklessness of bankers. Is this not why George Brown, despite all the evidence to the contrary, engaged bankers to direct the financial recovery?

The state cannot be absolved of all blame for the crisis as the government during the Chancellorship and Premiership of Gordon Brown did its utmost to encourage the speculative frenzy in the financial markets. Such frenzy provided a lucrative source of revenue through taxes such as s tamp duty and capital gains tax. Not the first government to become over dependent on tax revenue from such a volatile source as gambling. Economic history is the most neglected subject in the curriculum of our university educated elite.

What did the banker’s want most of all? To carry on as before and to avoid that what should happen in any crisis, the closure unsound businesses of which they were the most prominent example. What classical economists taught was that recessions were an economic Darwinism that weeded out all the weak businesses leaving only the strong surviving. In this crisis the weakest of the weak were the banks. What they had to avoid was paying the price of their recklessness, that is bankruptcy. Fortunately for them the government of UK would do all that was necessary to prevent that happening. The National Audit Office estimated that the government had paid £123.93 billion to bail out the banks and at the height of the crisis had stood guarantor for banks liabilities to the tune of £1.2 trillion. In 2009 the value of GDP was £139.26 trillion, so the UK had guaranteed debts equal to 86% of GDP or National Income. In the unlikely event that all those liabilities had to be met UK plc would have become bankrupt.

What was it that would enable the banks to remain solvent and continue as before? Low interest rates, what is called a cheap money policy. The many loans they had given out to borrowers to finance their speculative activities in the property or asset markets could only be financed by those borrowers if the interest they had to pay on these loans was small. As gambling on future speculative gains meant that what mattered, was not the current return on their investment, but the large sum to be made selling on the business at an inflated price. When the market stopped moving upwards such borrowers were in trouble, as they had borrowed far too much to buy these businesses and falling sales meant they had difficulty in financing their loans. In addition in a depressed market they were unlikely to find a buyer a d recoup their initial investment. One such example was Guy Hands who took over EMI hoping to reorganise it and sell it on at an inflated price. The market for EMI’s products collapsed and Guy Hands had difficulties in financing his borrowing. Eventually he disposed on the various parts of EMI to other private equity firms at a loss.

It was a similar situation in the property market, as there individuals and property developers had over borrowed on the anticipation of continually rising prices in the property market, as a large loan could easily be paid off by selling the property at an inflated price. since between 70 and 80% of bank loans are to the property market, financial catastrophe threatened.

Whether consciously or not Mervyn King was the saviour of the banks. He presided over a cheap money policy at the Bank of England, the Bank of England rate fell to an unheard level of 0.5%. Since the Bank of England rate was the base rate on which all lenders based their interest rates, all interest rates would fall in the market. The rationale for this policy was that low interest rates would make it cheap for businesses to borrow and this would encourage economic growth. Also low interest rates would enable over indebted British households to continue to pay their mortgages and avoid eviction. What he knew but did not say, was that a cheap money policy would be the saviour of our over indebted banks, who would not face a collapse of their loan books.

However it is not sufficient just to set the rate; there has to be a means by which all other financial institutions can be persuaded to follow that lead. The government did this by committing itself to end its spend thrift ways. A little digression is needed here bank rate is the rate of interest at which the government sells it borrows money and lenders will only lend money at low rates if they think it is a sound investment. As history shows when markets judge governments as unsound borrowing rates will be very high. Essentially they want to know that the government will have the wherewithal to repay its loans. Consequently the Labour government announced plans to cut its budget deficits. The market was satisfied and rates kept low.

This is a very simplistic account of the current situation, but it without parody summarises the thinking of the bankers. When the IMF or World Bank lent funds to countries, they inevitably only lent money to governments if they cut spending. In reality the cuts imposed on these countries invariably did little to help them out of the mess they were in, all these countries gained was the finance to pay off some of their foreign creditors. Surprisingly the cuts they imposed always seem to benefit foreign investors who could invest in the newly privatised state businesses. The blue print for aid was always drafted in a way to benefit rich foreign multi- national companies. What was always evident was has the self interest of the foreigner lenders motivated their actions.

Similarly with the City of London, they were able to have their cake and eat it. The banks and the city traders benefitted from low interest rates, as it meant that they had cheap money which made it easier that ever to speculate, as if money cost next to nothing to borrow, the costs of speculation were minimal. Those potentially rotten assets held by the banks would never be revealed as such, because the rates of interest were so low, that even the most indebted speculator could finance his borrowings. On top of that the government initiated a huge programme of quantitative easing which gave the banks vast amounts of practically free money, at present it totals £375 billion. In addition the programme of spending cuts have given them new opportunities to make money, as was accompanied by a programme of privatising state assets or services. One such example is the forthcoming privatisation of the probation service. There are fees for arranging privatisation and endless consultancy fees for advising on ever ingenious ways to scale back the size of government. Perhaps without too much exaggeration what Harold MacMillan’s said in 1959 about the UK applies to the banks, they ‘have never had it so good’.

There is a much darker side to the picture which is never discussed, except obliquely. If the economy picks up the demand for money will rise (money required for investment in new equipment, stocks etc.) and so interest rates will rise. Interest rates are low only if the demand for money is low, that is supply is greater than demand. Banks are continually claiming that there is no demand for loans from business, so the supply of money exceeds demand. While rates are low there is no chance of the insolvency of the banks being exposed, as borrowers won’t be forced to default on their loans. How conscious is the demand amongst bankers for demand in the economy to be suppressed is hard to tell. Certainly the wiser heads amongst them realise a depressed economy works in their interest. Bankers certainly represent an influential voice in government. What ever the self knowledge of bankers, they all know it is in their interest to continue the policy of cheap money, even if it means keeping the economy in a state of continual depression.

One of the wisest of the current generation warned of the dangers of growth. In a report published on the 27th June 2013, Mervyn King spoke of the dangers of increased growth even if his language was very guarded. He said increased economic growth would lead to an increase in interest rates, which require over indebted households to find additional sources of income to fund their mortgage repayments. What he did not say was that there would be the risk of increased insolvencies among indebted households and businesses. Depending on the level of insolvency this could have very serious consequences for the banks. His solution is to reduce the restrictions on banks so they would have more money at their disposal which could then be used to finance another speculative asset boom. Rising prices in the housing market would offset the rise in interest prices. He never spoke about the speculative boom but its safe to assume that this is what he meant.

Having written far more than I intended, what I have demonstrated is that the current policies of the government are of benefit to only the banks and the City of London. The whole country is paying the price for the follies of the super rich (aided by the naïveté of government). The banks can only remain solvent if the UK continues almost indefinitely in a state of semi depression or if the UK indulges in yet another frenzied housing and asset boom. The greatest losers are the young, years of depression means reduced job opportunities and lower incomes, continued job insecurity and for many long periods of unemployment. Another lost generation similar to that of the 1920 ‘s when the City of London demanded a policy of financial retrenchment which served its interests and those of nobody else. The alternative is hardly any better, economic growth generated by another speculative boom, which will lock millions out of the housing market and inevitably end in a speculative bust.

One final point should be made if banks had gone bankrupt had in 2009, the greatest losers would have been the super rich. It was they who had invested millions in speculation. There would have been a repeat of 1929, when in America failed financiers in despair threw themselves out of windows of Wall Street. The lesson of the years since 2009 is that there is never too high price that the super rich expect the rest of us to pay to protect their wealth.