This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
So Brown's getting close to implementing one the key planks of a traditional Socialist State: Wholesale compulsory nationalisation of banks. This is a joke, right? Someone please tell me this is a joke?The problem is that small businesses, you see, aren't being lent money by the banks, even though they've had taxpayers money and, grr, while they promised to remain 'hands off', the banks are making Brown look like a bloody fool and must be shown who's boss.
See, the banks are making decisions about which businesses will be able to pay that money back - short term cashflow issues, for example, to get the capital required to fill a particular order, and those which need to borrow money to stay alive until orders start coming in. Those types of businesses go the way of the dodo, as all failed businesses do, and in an economic contraction that is what happens.
The reality is that no matter how much money the banks take from taxpayers, they're still a business, and if they do not wish to go bankrupt - or trigger another crisis of confidence - they must be seen to have the most exacting and careful analysis of credit risk when making decisions. People may think you can turn banks into the magic money fairies again, but this reliance on credit, this desperate sense that banks should be forced to lend to people because 'people need money' is insane. Absolutely insane. It is a political point of view that is pure poison and I can think of no single greater risk to the economic health of this country than this belief becoming ubiquitous and accepted as a 'fact of life. It will destroy the banks and it will destroy those people who use this belief to cut corners preparing business plans, or run loss making businesses indefinitely based on an infinite line of credit from 'socially aware' lolcat banks that can actually be talked into lending by sob stories.
This is the path of madness and the absolute definition of a very clear and predictable road to ruin.
Just as banks have had to quickly adapt to a drought in the international money markets - no more cheap easy credit for the banks - so business and individuals in the UK need to adapt too. Those businesses that are still operating in loss will find it impossible. Those with the ability to accumulate capital reserves of some kind, who actually have a good level of cashflow and operate in profit - those will survive.
But this idea that you can someone use the banks to somehow avoid the inevitable business closures, redundancies and all the other crap that comes with a recession is, again, I use this word: Madness. It cannot be done. It is fantasy economics. It is the desperate fool ringing their bank when they've maxed out their credit cards and overdraft, who've run out of a money a week before their pay day begging to have more credit, just to tide them over, when it is clear they cannot afford the credit they already have.
The Government can Nationalise the banks and force them to do what they currently refuse to do, but the result will be the eventual collapse of the economy, leaving us at the mercy of the IMF.
But this brings me to the title of this piece: The 'Cashless Society'. We used to think that meant moving to cards, but now I think it actually has more value in describing economic reality in the UK: We have no cash. Businesses have no cash. We pay such absurd levels of tax that the only realistic way for people to buy anything is to put it on credit cards, or take out loans.
I mean, if businesses didn't have to pay such stupid levels of tax in the first place then maybe they wouldn't have needed so much credit in the first place. Perhaps they wouldn't need so much credit now. Perhaps us, as consumers, would actually be able to afford things (now that we can't just cheat and get things on credit) and so more businesses wouldn't have cashflow problems. I mean, christ, would we even be in a recession now if the entire economy hadn't just spent the last 10 years on a complete credit binge that was supposed to be paid tomorrow?
Well, we pay it back today. That's it. That's how this works. Our stupid economy, where nothing really happens and we punch above our economy weight by borrowing, where we live beyond our means through credit cards - simulating a 'booming' economy full of productive, useful activity and masking the decline, the inertia and stagnation in every part of the economy that isn't to do with the housing marking or store cards.
To those of you that think we're going to get out of this mess by forcing the banks to start lending reckless, stupid amounts of money to people and organisations that can't afford to pay it back again, if you think we can use the banks to subsidise British industry and commerce by the back door, so to speak, if you think that this will do anything but postpone the devastation that's supposed to be happening right now, then please: Give me a time and a place where I can come and kick you hard in the nuts.
This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
25 comments:
So, when will you be visting Nick Clegg and Vince Cable to do this then? :)
It's strictly invitation only.
Actually if our party's policy is anything other than a very sneaky ploy to lure Brown into shifting so amazingly far to the left that the public get spooked and run a mile... we have a problem.
This is pure populist garbage fantasy economics, and even if it was making the slightest dent on our popularity, it would *still* be garbage.
Darrell,
Charlotte is right about bank nationalisations. Its very worrying indeed that people are actually considering going down the Latin American populist dictator route of nationalisation and plugging the gap by simply printing more money. The problem with the current recession is in policy mind set we are treating it like the end of the dot com bubble. Attempting to make it short and shallow, hoping that the underlying problems will just go away. They won't. There is a rocky landing. Things will not be pleasant for a lot of people. This could have been made less bad through preparation over the last few years. Unfortunately, we can't just "beat" recession. We can't just make it go away by throwing money at it. We have structural problems. These won't be fixed through Chinese style lending. Just think how much bad debt we're going to store up for the future. If it doesn't happen now we are just storing it all up for something worse. Think south asia crisis of 97-98 just worse and over here.
Anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged will find this all very, very familiar. Directive 10-289 here we come.
Hope your nose is better CG.
James,
When this came up on LDV I think I remember making the point that nobody was proposing a credit bonanza but more a return to parity.
Secondly, as I understand it the proposal was merely that government should lend in place of banks. I see no proposals to start printing money like we have overdosed on crazy flakes nor endless lines of credit. As usual Charlotte has bent the stick to the point where she has rather inventively snapped it.
James,
Incidentally I agree that there are structural issues that need to be looked at and I have no problems with a wider discussion about addressing those but in the short-term it's a problem of liquidity and I think it would be wrong of us to fall into the trap of doing what Clegg rightly accused the Tories of; 'nothing'.
Oh I don't know, I think we should just make strong hints to the baby-boomer generation that the day of reckoning will soon be upon them.
When they retire they will no longer be in power and they will no longer be rigging the rules of the market in their favour.
Our parents have stolen from us (in deferred repayments) and they almost expect us to submit to emotional blackmail to look after them in their infirmity.
I'm glad they are so confident in their futures when they've mortgaged ours.
It's funny that isn't it Oranjepan? The Baby Boomer's have often been concerned about who will pay for their retirement. It's a good thing they've swung the country to the left and we're all caring, generous altruists now happy and willing to pay whatever it takes. Problem solved! Woo!
I think you're generalising a bit there, Charlotte - and not wholly accurately either.
I'd say that the baby boomers are actually a bit too thatcherite in that they've actually selfishly speculated on asset-price bubbles at the expense of making solid investments - living the life of riley without wanting to get their hands dirty making things.
Now that their idle, oafish and irrational exuberance has been pricked they can no longer depend on a massive and disproportionate windfall from the sale of their homes to fund their retirement.
The inequality gap which has grown between those who can sell their second buy-to-let home and those who only have the one we live in could probably be used as an example of how society has gone too far to the right.
So what is funny is that the tories are big on raising inheritance tax thresholds when fewer people are going to have anything to pass on to their children.
Anyhow where I do agree with you is that while moving society to the right they only tinkered with the underlying role of the state.
What they've left us with is essentially fascist - an intrusive carceral state which has inverted democracy and has instead created an impotent bureaucracy which can't address the demands of the population on education, employment, health, crime, community cohesion and personal fulfilment despite all the powers is collects for itself.
If we don't get a properly liberal and democratic government within the next generation we might only be able to postpone the massive cataclysm we are drifting towards.
I have this argument with my big sister whenever I see her.
She is agnostic regarding all parties and says it is healthy for govt to swing from left to right as this means the ship can head into the wind by tacking across the centreline; I'm almost evangelical when I tell her we should be turning the ship around and heading downwind as fast as we can.
She says we've need to head back to the safety of home port; I say we want to follow the trades and circumnavigate the world.
Oranjepan, I've never seen you so heated. Very good indeed. So much for the wishy washy jibes.
Darrell,
Individual lending from bank of state to a business is not a public good. The interbank lending market is. We should be trying to stimulate that back into action as much as possible and let the banks make their own lending decisions. Otherwise we might as well just have a totally state run economy. How else would we wean ourselves of state credit?
Oh, and as for printing cash, where do you think the deficit is coming from other than fiat money?
Hmm, maybe the hangover's worn off now...
James,
The employees of the business in question might like to take issue with that; I said over at my gaffe that governments will always prefer to keep people in work for understandable reasons.
Surely it is also a valid point that the money ends up getting spent in any case...in increased benefit bills??
How do you suggest that you 'stimulate' them into doing something they patently don't want to do??
How do you suggest that you 'stimulate' them into doing something they patently don't want to do??
why don't you start asking why the banks don't want to do these things? After all, they make money from lending...
Keeping failed businesses alive for the sake of it, at taxpayer's expense, is a profoundly stupid idea by the way. The point about Capitalism is that money flows to the efficient businesses providing the goods and services that people want and need. There's no such thing as a job for life, people should go where they are needed - not by paid by me to stay in a job that's of no use to anyone.
Darrell,
It sounds harsh but Charlotte is making an economically literate point here. The banks can't be stimulated to lend to businesses that are failing. Its really bad that people are loosing their jobs in a recession; it is harder to get a new one. But the state can't just subsidize businesses just to keep people in employment. Then why not have state employment and just be done with it. We can't create full employment just through state will and diktat.
The free(ish) market is a system of creative destruction. That is not a cliche. In the boom years we've been having one in seven jobs was destroyed every year. More were created of course, so nobody really cared. Businesses come and go. That is the nature of things. We can not have the state willy nilly supporting some. Who decides who should be kept afloat? How much power do you wish to give to lobbyists? How much of a corporatist state do you wish to create?
Out of interest, what is your opinion on the putative GM, Ford, Chrysler bail out?
I feel I should cross my legs tightly before writing this but...
I think there is a huge point being missed. A friend of mine runs a very successful business. From time to time he requires an extended overdraft from his bank due to the nature of his business. Right now he can't get it. His business may suffer, he may have to make people redundant, his business might go under. This is due to no fault of his own and in any other circumstance it would never happen. So while I agree banks shouldn't lend to businesses that don't deserve it, surely they should if the business does deserve it.
But hold on isn't there an argument that the banks have been lending it to people or businesses who didn't deserve it.
Does this mean that the market didn't work or did work because the banks made the mistake and now they are suffering? Except everyone is suffering. And if governments aren't good at picking winners and losers it seems banks aren't either.
Where does all this get us? Well it surely gets us to the point where we realise that politics and economics are complicated. There are no easy solutions and sometimes you have to deal with where you are not where you want to be.
Oh I can see that shoe heading my way...
PS that isn't an argument for nationalising all banks.
Simon, swift kicks are entirely voluntary, of course.
The point is that lending decisions can't be made based on who 'deserves' it, rather who has the ability to afford the debt and most likely to pay it back.
The cost of debt is intrinsically linked to the risk, and the risks are currently enormous, even for previously successfully run businesses. The banks have two options: Massively increase the cost of borrowing, or reduce the numbers of people eligible for borrowing at the current price. They're under pressure to 'pass on the rate cut' so they're mostly doing a bit of both. But because they're in capital raising mode, smaller volumes of more profitable, lower risk business makes more sense than higher volumes and tighter margins (which is what they were doing before the crisis).
It's just business. Yes it's complicated, but there's bugger all Government or politicians can to do change the basic mechanics of running a bank successfully.
James :),
Sorry for the lateness of my reply, have been away...so am playing catch-up with the blogsphere...
'We cant create full employment just by state diktat'
I agree. I think I should make it clear that I support these measures as emergency measures and the 'best of a bad job' not as an ideal solution. I'm glad you admit the point about the system of creative destruction; something which I frequently have to tussel over.
My opinion on that bail-out is over on my blog but I dont mind restating it here...i'm in favour of merger as the least bad option...also, I think its worth pointing out this juncture is that there are in effect two problems, one of is regarding the businesses we are talking about and one is regarding repossessions etc,
I accept what you are saying but as I said the state ends up paying in some way in either case due to increased spedning on welfare...so which is the better option; to keep people in employment where possible or accept large-scale social dislocation etc caused by unemployment??
Darrell,
How do you work out which is the most cost effective? I'm really unconvinced that lending to businesses direct which banks won't touch in the current climate, to keep jobs going is cheaper than just paying unemployment benefit. How do you make that cost-benefit analysis?
James,
I dont just make it on economic costs but also social costs ie, the danger that people will become long-term unemployed with all the damage that implies to communities.
How about the danger of even more bad debt, the economy not turning around. Investors losing confidence in the pound as the government has to part nationalise abbey, barclays etc when Latin america and asia goes bad. UK Government debt worth considered risky. We could become big Iceland. I'm not saying it will happen, but it is a possibility. Just consider the social unrest then. We'd be bankrupt. Imagine the next ten years then.
Like in the Great Depression if we're not careful, Government (well meaning) policies might tip us over the edge.
James,
Yes there is that possibility but never did I claim we were dealing in a world where ideal solutions exist and that is part of the problem is it not that almost, it is a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situation.
What we are really dealing with is a situation where ultimately what happens is in the lap of agencies directly outside the governments control like consumers, other economies, etc, etc...
banks need to convert to electronic money...it would save billions in operating costs.
Post a Comment