Friday, January 9, 2009

The Underlying Value in Currency - Why the £ is Falling

This post started out as a short response to a comment by B33ENN, who is a relatively new commentator on the blog, and who commented on my post on 'UK Government Borrowing - Where is the Money Coming From'. However, as I wrote my response I found that I was reiterating many of the points that I have made throughout the blog. As such, it occurred to me that newer readers of the blog may not have an underlying understanding of the principles of the blog, and that sometimes I make posts with assumptions that they do.

The problem with the way that the blog is structured is that it is a cumulative argument. I therefore strongly recommend that newer readers take a look through the key posts that I have linked to (these can be found to the left of this). In the meantime, I have adapted what was originally going to be a quick comment in the comments section of the UK borrowing post.

The original post discussed how low interest rates were possibly leading to a reluctance of depositors from depositing money in the banking system. I pointed out that under normal circumstances these deposits would be made available for investment, and the government was therefore constraining the supply of capital for investment through such low interest rates.

The first point I would like to address is that two commentators quite rightly identified that I was simplifying the methods by which bank deposits are channeled into the economy. This from B33ENN:
This is not exactly as I understand the mechanism. Yes, the banks do use the reserves as a basis for lending. However, the banks actually use the reserves as margin for leveraged lending. In simpler terms, they create “new money” in the form of new loans by amplifying the reserves according to the fractional reserve lending criteria. So for example, if a bank holds £10 in saved deposits, it then can create a further £90 worth of loans. These loans then become “real money” in the economy flowing out through business and individuals who borrowed and then deposit it into more banks that repeat the exercise until you reach a maximum amount that can be created from that first £10.
Lemming also commented to this effect. They have have both rightly pointed out that I have simplified the method by which deposits are turned into lending. I did not want to go into Fractional Reserve Banking (FRB) as this would distract from the underlying themes of the post, which was the centralisation of the government in the economy and where the government was actually finding the money to lend. In a sense they are right that this is unavoidable as part of the discussion, but I wrongly assumed that it did not need to be detailed. The point here is that deposits create the opportunity for banks to make further lending.

For readers who have never previously heard of FRB, I strongly recommend the (controversial) Wikipedia article here as an introduction, as it also includes the role of central banks (you may also want to read the heated debate that is linked to at the top of the article if you are really interested). If you have never heard of the system, it may come as quite a surprise, or even a shock. Another interrelated point that you may want to consider is the system of 'fiat money' which I discuss here.

The reason why these are important considerations is that they are at the heart of our economic system. In the case of FRB, we have a system which is inherently inflationary, through a continual steady expansion of the money supply by central banks (printing money if you wish), and through fiat money we have a system in which the value of money is almost entirely built upon confidence (which I discuss here- not an easy post, but stick with it) and which allows for unconstrained printing of money. It should be noted that printing money does not require physical printing of bank notes and minting of coins and quantitative easing is a process in which the process of 'printing' money goes into overdrive.

My argument is simple. Flooding money into the market in the manner of quantitative easing to create money for the government to lend to the banks, in order for the banks to lend to the government, business and consumers can only lead to currency collapse and hyper-inflation. Governments/central banks are claiming that they are doing so to avoid deflation, and I will address this question for the UK.

What the government is doing is massively increasing supply of the currency at a point in time when the external demand for the currency is in free fall. A large part of the demand for the £GB has been to buy the £GB in order to then lend it into the UK, and this source of demand is disappearing. Another part of the demand is as a reserve currency, but that status is diminishing with the weakening of the £GB (the two factors are related). On the other hand, there has not been much demand for the £GB as a currency to buy goods or services from the UK, something that can be seen in the balance of trade figures. Essentially, the value of a currency rests in supply and demand, and the confidence in the currency. The confidence element needs some explanation.

Confidence is a very difficult problem as it is possible for individuals and institutions to assign a greater value to a currency than underlying supply and demand would suggest that it should have. The loss of confidence in the £GB is seeing the £GB's value declining through loss of confidence, but that loss of confidence is rooted in the reality that the UK does not produce enough goods or services that people in other countries want to buy. In other words, individuals and institutions have realised that the £GB is not very useful as a currency to exchange for goods and services - there are many pounds in the market but there is little demand for goods and services that are exchanged in pounds. In the end the value of a fiat currency is determined by how many goods and services there are that people want to buy versus how many units of currency there are in circulation.

What has happened over the last couple of decades is that this principle has been forgotten. Demand for the £GB (and the $US - though the $US is a more complex case), has been supported by demand to lend into UK consumption. What has been forgotten by all of these lenders is to ask exactly with what the UK could produce to repay this lending. This error is now being recognised and what you then have is a situation in which investors are 'getting out of'' the £GB, as they recognise that there is simply not enough being produced in the UK to support its value. It is for this reason that the £GB is falling so fast. At the same time as demand for the £GB is falling there is a situation in which government creating more £GB at a time when there are already more £GB than the market wants. This is inherently inflationary.

The inflationary aspect of this is twofold. On the one hand all imported goods are going to become more expensive. In a massive simplification, there is a situation in which the UK currently does not produce enough goods that the Chinese factory worker wants to buy, such that his labour on a plasma TV can not be exchanged for any goods from the UK.

In order for UK consumers to buy that plasma TV, they must produce something with a commensurate value that the Chinese worker wants to buy. If they do not, then there is nothing to exchange for that plasma TV. The only solution to the problem is devaluation of the £GB. What this means is that the UK worker must work x number of hours more in order to be able to offer something in exchange for the plasma TV. In other words, the value of the labour in the UK must be adjusted to a point at which it can produce something that has sufficient value in exchange for the Chinese worker to buy.

What you are seeing in the change in the exchange rate devaluation is the value of labour between the UK and China moving to a new equilibrium. This example, of course, is just for the UK and China but needs to be applied across the global economy which, whilst more complex, does not change the underlying question of relative efficiency in the production of goods and services between economies.

Quite simply, the UK is not efficient enough at producing goods and services to continue to compete in world markets on the current exchange rate. This has simply been hidden through a false confidence that arose out of demand for the £GB to support lending into consumption. The illusion of the £GB was built upon a false confidence in the efficiency of the UK as an economy. It is actually not very efficient.

In light of this, the £GB can only continue falling until it reaches a new equilibrium that reflects the true state of the UK's efficiency in the production of goods and services. This problem can only be compounded by the production of more currency. The underlying value of a currency can be simplified as follows (ignoring investment overseas):

The total of goods and services produced in the country which have value in exchange with other countries divided by the units of currency in circulation.

In a fiat money system, if you increase the units of currency in circulation, without increasing the value of goods and services that you produce, the value of the currency must eventually fall. As such, in printing money, you create inflation on all imported goods and services. If you print with wild abandon, then you create massive inflation in imported goods and services. A simple case in point is oil, which has been falling in price around the world as demand for oil has been reducing. In principle, as a net importer, the UK should be seeing dramatic drops in the price of this input, but the reality is that the reduction of the cost of this commodity is ameliorated by the falling £GB.

Whilst the UK is seeing an absolute fall in the price of oil, it is seeing a relative increase in the price of oil in relation to countries whose currency is appreciating against the £GB. In other words, the UK is becoming poorer relative to those countries, even though it appears that oil is becoming absolutely cheaper. In practical terms, the UK worker must now work x number of hours more than a worker in another country to fill up his car with petrol (gas if you are a US reader). However, the falling price of oil is seen as deflationary by government and the central bank, such that their solution is to incorporate this in overall inflation, and print more money to prevent this deflation.

In doing so, they increase the supply of units of currency, the value of £ goes down further, thereby increasing the cost of oil imports, further impoverishing the individual filling up their car with petrol relative to a person in another country. Although the solution has prevented deflation within the country, it has also done so at the relative impoverishment of the person filling his car up with petrol. In this case the person is poorer as the value of his £GB has been transferred to the newly printed money.

The real question however, is how all of this will balance out. Will the fall in the £GB offset the fall in the price of commodities and counteract the fall in demand for a range of goods and services. I have argued that it is more probable that the plunge of the £GB will actually counteract the deflationary effects of contraction in demand through the increased cost of all imports. However this is not certain, as it depends on where the £GB will eventually settle. This in turn depends, in part, on the government.

However, a fundamental problem in all of this is whether deflation is a bad thing. For example, if the price of a loaf of bread deflates, is this a cause for worry? The answer to questions such as this largely depend on whether you are a saver or borrower. If you are a saver, you see the value of your savings increase in relation to the price of goods and services so you do very well in a deflationary environment. On the other hand, if you are a borrower, you see the value of your debt in relation to goods and services increase. This is very bad news for you. It is also unfortunate that so much has been done to encourage you into borrowing, and discourage you from saving.

If we look at the wider economy, there has been a problem that too many people have been borrowing for consumption, and not enough people have been saving. This is a problem. Deflation creates a situation in which individuals are motivated to pay down debt as fast as possible, and people are encouraged to save. This would represent a dramatic shift in the balance of borrowing and saving, and arguably a shift that would rebalance the economy away from being consumption driven to being driven towards saving and investment.

The counter argument is that this deferral of spending will create a self-reinforcing downward spiral of the economy, where nobody is producing anything due to lack of demand, as everybody is saving or paying down debt. However, if the economy has been balanced to much towards borrowing for consumption, and has therefore become imbalanced (the crux of my argument), then surely this is exactly what is needed. If the only thing supporting large parts of your economy is rooted in unsustainable borrowing, then the only solution is that the parts of the economy that have been artificially supported by that borrowing driven consumption must be allowed to be destroyed. They could not be sustained in any case. Deflation is just a mechanism of rebalancing.

Deflation would also have the effect of creating greater savings. In so doing the capital base of the financial system would effectively be fixed, but painfully so. Those banks that were overstretched would go to the wall, creating a period of further crisis. However, the surviving banks would end up accumulating capital, and would then be able to divert that capital into the process of economic recovery. With the £GB having fallen, and the true efficiency of the UK economy reflected in the realigned £GB, many new potential areas of business would once again become potentially competitive. Such new businesses will need capital in order to grow.

As such, B33ENN was correct when saying that if the government did not act as it is, there would be huge asset liquidations. Where he is wrong is that the government has the capability to save the economy by acting as a guarantor through printing money and borrowing. The fundamental point is that the current crisis is about the fundamental state of the economy, the inability to produce enough goods and services to exchange for our massive levels of importation of goods and services. It is the massive imbalance in the economy that is the problem. The real problem with the deflationary solution is not that it would lead to a rebalancing of the economy away from debt fuelled consumption, which is any case essential, but that it would do so in a very painful way. This is politically unacceptable, but absolutely MUST happen.

We then have to ask ourselves what will happen with the borrowing and money printing solution. As I pointed out in my last post, the banks are now offering interest rates that are a deterrent to saving. As such, the only way to fill the hole in bank capitalisation is through the government providing that capital. However, the government must either print money, causing inflation and further disincentive for saving, or borrowing. How can either of these solutions possibly help in rebalancing the economy away from consumption? On the one hand the money printing will further devalue the £GB, but that would in any case happen with the £GB falling to its natural equilibrium value. It would not really have any impact on the reduction of the value in relation to the equilibrium, it would just be a further devaluation for devaluation's sake. In other words, it will not change the equilibrium which is determined by relative efficiency in creating goods and services for exchange versus the number of units in circulation.

Printing more money just changes the number of units, not the equilibrium point.

In addition we need to remember that, as I have pointed out in many posts, the creation of fiat money in this way is a transfer of value from the existing money supply onto the new money. As such it is a form of taxation. In this situation, the government is both pointlessly devaluing currency and also massively increasing the tax burden in a time of economic crisis. In doing so they are impoverishing every investor, and every saver. The only result of such activity is eventually to kill investment activity, and create capital flight. Available capital and investment is the long term solution to the crisis, and will be needed to restructure the economy.

As for borrowing more money, the problem arises (as I have endlessly pointed out) that borrowing for consumption today (which is what the borrowed money would primarily be used for) means a contraction at some point in the future. In other words, it will delay the contraction now at the cost of a greater contraction in the future.

My argument is that what all of this money creation and borrowing amounts to is an attempt at pretending that the economy is actually still producing enough wealth to support the UK's high standard of living. Whilst the economy was previously built upon consumer borrowing, the government is seeking to replace the position of borrower and spender. One of the comments of B33ENN was the traditional role of central banks is to be the lender of last resort. In this case the government is becoming the borrower of last resort. What it is doing is pretending that we still create value in goods and services for exchange with other countries that we do not in fact do. Borrowing money is just a method to try to bury this reality.

In short, the UK has built an economy around consumption, and that consumption is built upon debt, and without the flood of credit into the UK, nothing is going to allow us to continue the service/consumption economic model. Whatever the government does, somewhere, somehow, there must be sufficient wealth creation to pay for the goods and services that we consume from our trading partners. Our trading partners have (foolishly) been extending credit to us for a long time. That has stopped. No amount of government intervention is going to prevent reality from emerging.

Whatever the government does, the bankruptcy, unemployment MUST happen, as the basic shape of the economy was directed towards unsustainable consumption built upon debt provided by wealth producing economies.

The government can guarantee all kinds of things, but in doing so the government will just transfer the damage from private companies and individuals to the government, making the government ever less solvent. The government can, of course, just keep printing more and more money to address this. However, in doing so they just destroy the value of money, and this MUST lead to hyper inflation. If you doubt this is the case, you may wish to read this article in the Telegraph. Quite simply people are losing their confidence in money, even in the 'mighty' $US. In the case of the article, the rich are moving into having physical holdings of golds - literally buying gold as an 'in the hand' physical asset. The rich have the ability to get sophisticated advice on how to invest their money, and are therefore in the vanguard of the collapse in confidence.

The whole point of this blog is to point out that there is something fundamentally wrong in the UK economy. It is no longer able to generate the wealth to support itself at the current standard of living. As such I was surprised to see B33EN suggesting that the government can somehow turn back economic reality. He is not alone in this. Many clever economists are effectively telling us that you can create something from nothing, but at some point the illusion must disappear. Creating money from thin air does not create value, it transfers value. At some point, somehow, you have to create value, and that means engaging in activity that creates something - wealth creation through selling goods or services that our trading partners want.

We are simply not doing enough of this. How can government guarantees, borrowing money, and printing money change this reality?

B33ENN is falling into the trap that many mainstream economists fall into, by looking at the situation as if it were complex. It is not. It is very simple. A strong economy is one in which you create things that others want exchange with you. Without that, there is nothing.

Government can not make wealth. It can not produce anything, it can only spend the money of those that create wealth, which is those who create something with value in exchange. The only role government can have in wealth creation is to set up an environment in which wealth creators can thrive. Destroying the value of money is not such a situation, and nor is the taxation implicit in money printing. It is simply a way of pretending that the fundamental problems do not exist. If you do not sell enough goods and services that people want, eventually they will not want to sell you anything, as you do not have anything they want in return.

It can not be put more simply than this. All the rest is nonsense. All the rest is window dressing that hides this reality.

It has been a bit of a meandering post (again), but as usual I have simply been writing my thoughts as they occur to me. I hope, however, that this makes sense. I hope that I have illustrated that any illusions of endless government interventions is just (at best) a delaying mechanism. The economy must change, and that change will under all circumstances be painful. I am not sure that I have given the post a good title, but I hope that it is roughly right.

Update to the Post: 14 January 2009

I mention a couple of times in the post that the fundamental problem of the UK economy is that it is just not very good at the creation of goods and services that other countries want to buy. The result is revealed painfully in this Telegraph article:
The trade gap ballooned to £8.3bn from £7.6bn in October, the highest level since records began in 1697, reflecting the fact that Britain is importing more from other countries than it is exporting. Economists had expected the deficit to narrow to £7.5bn because of sterling's sharp slide in the final few months of 2008.
This is a reflection of the underlying problems in the UK economy. Just as poor economic conditions expose the weakness of companies, it is the same with the economic position of countries. Even with a sinking currency, we are still importing more than we are exporting. However, we should also remember that there will be a time lag from currency change to the shift in the balance of trade. As such, whilst these figures probably reflect the exchange rate of the £ a few months ago, rather than now (e.g. in long supply chains, there will be delay before contracts expire, and new contracts sought)

A Note for one of the Regular Commentators, Steve Tierney: Steve, apologies but your post appears to have been lost by the Blogger system. I have had no email notification (I have checked through my inbox), and there is nothing in the system. Please be assured that your comments are seen as a welcome contribution to the blog, and I would not, in any case, not publish just because someone said something that I did not 'like'. As such please accept my apologies.

As a general note to all readers, I publish all comments provided that they are not spam, do not use bad language and...that is pretty well it. I am a follower of the political philosophy of Mill's 'On Liberty' on the issue of free speech, so do not undertake any censorship. Bad language is unacceptable, as it is unnecessary to express a point of view but can be offensive, so this is why this would not be published. Spam is deleted as it is just using the site for advertising for which the writers do not wish to pay, and adds nothing to the site.

I have had a complaint from a person for deleting a post which I believed was spam. I flicked through their very long web pages, and found that they were recruiting individuals into some kind of new form of investment. I read no further, and the person has complained that I did not understand what was written. My answer is simple - any offer of any kind of investment requires the capital of individuals. It is therefore treated as spam.


  1. That's a fantastic analysis - and I couldn't agree more...

    I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the US dollar if you haven't already done so.

    The complicating factor that you hint at - I take it - is the MAD situation that exists between china and the US, with China reliant on the US for the consumption of its good - paid for by Chinese lending.

    How do you see that playing out?

  2. Dear Cynicus,

    Thank you for taking the time to clarify your argument here. I understand the argument more clearly now and can see where I misinterpreted your original post. I will of course take time to read back through the archive before commenting in future.

    “...I was surprised to see B33EN suggesting that the government can somehow turn back economic reality.”

    However, I am not sure how you concluded that I am supporting the government’s measures as a way to turn back economic reality. The end of my argument was that if the government want the “free” money they need to “kick-start” the economy today, they have to give something tangible and real in exchange to the people who we borrow from tomorrow.

    Essentially, I was making the same point: that beneath the veneer of clever political spin, the laws of nature regarding exchange of goods and services will win out no in the end. But, I was suggesting that perhaps where we don’t have goods and services to offer, the government intends to pay down the debt (needed to fuel the service economy) by selling off British national assets that it owns to keep the debt under control.

    Unless someone can point out how selling national assets over the years has not contributed to income used to service debt, I still hold this belief that in the future, we will see the last remaining institutions broken up and sold off.

    I am in no way in support of this, and agree with your sentiment about re-investing in the future of British production to even up the balance of trade into something sustainable. However, I am suspicious of our governments and their habit of choosing the path of least resistance.

    I just cannot find another plausible explanation of why government after government would continue to go down this road, knowing it will not lead to a strong future for Britain in the world economy.

  3. Sorry, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, But Quantitative Easing Won't Work.

    In a Liquidity Trap although Saving (S) is abnormally high investment (I) is next to 0.

    Hence, the Keynesian paradigm I = S is not verified.

    The purpose of Quantitative Easing being to lower the yield on long-term savings and increase liquidity it doesn't create $1 of investment.

    In a Liquidity Trap the last thing the Market needs is liquidity.

    Quantitative Easing does diminish the yield on long-term US Treasury debt but lowers marginally, if at all, the asked yield on long-term savings.

    Those purchases maintain the demand for long-term asset in an unstable equilibrium.

    When this disequilibrium resolves the Market turns chaotic.

    This and other issues are explored in my tract:

    A Specific Application of Employment, Interest and Money
    Plea for a New World Economic Order


    This tract makes a critical analysis of credit based, free market economy, Capitalism, and proves that its dysfunctions are the result of the existence of credit.

    It shows that income / wealth disparity, cause and consequence of credit and of the level of long-term interest-rates, is the first order hidden variable, possibly the only one, of economic development.

    It solves most of the puzzles of macro economy: among which Unemployment, Business Cycles, Under Development, Trade Deficits, International Division of Labor, Stagflation, Greenspan Conundrum, Deflation and Keynes' Liquidity Trap...

    It shows that no fiscal or monetary policy, including the barbaric Quantitative Easing will get us out of depression.

    A Credit Free, Free Market Economy will correct all of those dysfunctions.

    The alternative would be, on the long run, to wait for the physical destruction (through war or rust) of most of our productive assets. It will be at a cost none of us can afford to pay.

    In This Age of Turbulence People Want an Exit Strategy Out of Credit,

    An Adventure in a New World Economic Order.

    A Specific Application of Employment, Interest and Money

    Press release of my open letter to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke:

    Sorry, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, But Quantitative Easing Won't Work.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Shalom P. Hamou AKA 'MC Shalom'
    Chief Economist - Master Conductor
    1776 - Annuit Cœptis.

  4. I have never understood why putting money in a deposit account where it does nothing other than satisfy an outdated regulation on capital adequancy should yield an income for the depositor when they don't even assume any risk (owning something like company shares would obviously be different).

    Surely the only cost involved in creating money is the administration and the insurance against loss? Wouldn't we be much better to scrap capital adequacy rule provided that the loan is adequately insured and set these costs out transparently?

    It only made sense to pay depositors when a deposit meant something physical (like a pile of gold) rather than a number that can be conjured up electronically!

    This would prevent banks from taking the "insurance fund" as profits and mean that defaulters could be dealt with more fairly when it wasn't their fault - a claim could pay of part of the loan for example and avoid forced liquidations.

    Just a thought.

  5. "Government cannot create wealth".

    I really don't understand why anybody says this. If the government builds a road, bridge, powerplant, or anything else useful it has created wealth. Government spending may not be as efficient as free-market spending, but it will never be 0% efficient.

  6. HI Cynicus,

    A Happy New Year to you.

    I had to have a break from all the pessimism but I am back and refreshed.

    I find it quite easy to be hypnotised by the bulls in the UK but sites like yours keeps me real. I strongly recommend Mish Shedlock's blog on economic trends. He thinks that "The UK is on the road to oblivion."

    Here is my New Year view:

    Could the UK become an Undeveloping Nation?

    Three pillars of UK plc:

    ~Property Speculation.
    ~The City.

    Feeding off these is the State.

    To me, it looks like the three pillars are crashing in a deflationary spiral.

    The State requires copious tax revenues to feed the beast.

    Darling & Brown have decided to fill the gap by issuing loads of debt. They hope that this will replace the lost GDP and that at some point the merry-go-round of rising house prices will garner growth. They expected this to start in Q3 but are now backtracking from this latest delusion. Most pundits are calling for the UK to bounce back in a couple of years, they see it as a recession that will self correct with sufficient stimulus.

    What if the three pillars have been structurally altered for good:

    ~The City: casino capitalism that fed on huge leverage has been castrated. Banks will become utility like, with leverage of c.10x. Goldmans and the like, who are in reality listed hedge funds, will never again be able to leverage 30x+. Private Equity will struggle to get the same type of leverage again. Securitisation has died. The huge tax revenues, bonuses and white collar job growth is dead. The likes of RBS & Lloyds will savagely downsize.

    ~Property Speculation: feeding off the banks, that used securtisation, we had the biggest property bubble in British history. 1.1 million buy-to-let mortgages were snapped up by Middle England. The UK consumer owes £1.4 trillion in personal debt. House prices rose as cheap and very easy debt allowed consumers to pay ever higher prices in the delusion that as an island there are not enough houses. Even though there are a c.800,000 empty homes right now. This type of delusion infected Japan and Hong Kong. Now that the banks are bust the property crash will be intensified by rising unemployment, buy-to-let panic selling, and having to save a deposit for a mortgage.

    ~Retailing: from the boom in The City and Property Speculation, a huge manipulation in debt enabled Brits to go on one massive spending spree. 1 in 10 jobs in the UK is in retailing. As consumers, companies and banks pay down their debts this sector will retrench massively. The government will be unable to bailout this sector.

    This magic circle of wealth was built on debt. It was a bubble par excellence.

    Now the bubble has popped there seem to be two options:

    1. Keynesian all out attack: pile on the debt.

    2. Austrian malinvestment bust: purge the system. Clean up the balance sheet, pay off debt. Let prices equalise. The market will do it quickly but painfully. Cut State spending and cut taxes.

    Alas, our government are going all out on the Keynesian front. I think that Brown, Darling, King, and most of the economic elite are basically clowns. Look at Kaletsky's columns for an insight into the madness at the top table. It is just like Marconi: debt, delusion and a bubble popping. The company imploded. The management destroyed a brilliant business (GEC) as they fell for a bubble and went on a debt spree; demand collapsed when the bubble popped. Brown went on a debt spree, as he knew and stated that a bubble was brewing in housing. Yet he did nothing, zilch. His recent VAT cut was pathetic and no doubt some horrific plans are coming down the pipe. I believe that he is the man who could bust our country and deliver us in to becoming an Undeveloping Nation. The North Sea is abating and the The City is a busted flush. How will we as a nation find growth to fuel our economy? We have a government that is piling on the debt, which will mean higher taxes. The rich are going to get hammered, meaning they will leave Blighty - we will have a brain drain. Why will people want to buy our currency: it is no longer petro or high finance. We have a balance sheet which will hobble the country for decades.

    The real decline may not be visible for a while but I sense that Britain is now going into a steep decline. Debt is the reason for this malady. I feel a deep anger toward Blair & Brown. Like Simpson & Mayo, two men can destroy a company, or a nation.

    *Have we not been in decline for 100 years or more? Did Thatcher just provide a brief 20 year respite - a countertrend rally one could say?

    Just an illusion (delusion):

  7. In the medium term; if there is a global, massive oversupply of labour (as you have previously stated), isn't investing in UK production going to be problematic, as it assumes a total collapse in the standard of living in the UK -- so that the average UK manufacturing worker can directly compete on a more level playing pitch with with workers in China/ the third world/ where ever labour is cheapest?

    In the long term;
    Could we be at the start of of the first society where labour does not define human existence? Let's say in 20 years robots can do all the manufacturing, how are capitalism / free markets relevant in a society where manufacturing labour is not needed?
    Maybe a bit abstract, but it seems to me this oversupply of labour is here to stay and can only worsen (or better, depending).

  8. Another interesting post, thanks. I wrote a rather "tongue in cheek" article on quantitative easing a couple of weeks back (see ). I did not discuss the downsides adequately. What do you think are the downsides to inflation in our present predicament?

  9. Death to Bubble Addicts:
    Very good points and thanks for the video. Genius!!!

    Lord Sidcup:
    Your long term point is most intriguing. Abstract perhaps, but radical thinking is needed. If you have not done so please watch the Zeitgeist Addendum video I recommended on the last post - it proposes an alternative societal view along the lines of what you mention.

  10. I posted a fairly long comment. Nothing has appeared. Did I say something wrong?

  11. Edmund Conway in the Telegraph - 13/1/09:

    'S&P have followed up their Spain decision yesterday by looking again at the UK and a number of other countries. You might well fear that the UK would face a similar threat to Spain. After all, we too have a massive current account deficit and a ballooning budget deficit; we too have a sliding economy, falling house prices and rising unemployment. We too are perilously overextended. But, unlike Spain, the UK has kept its top-rate credit rating. Why? Well, in large part thanks to having our own currency. As the S&P report points out, the current account deficit should narrow of its own accord in the coming months and years, and this is largely a function of having an independent currency.

    The point is that the weaker pound should encourage exports in the coming years. It should be the cure, rather than the disease, for the UK economy. Spain's problem is that the euro is still painfully strong because of the vastly different fiscal and economic position of fellow euro members. As the report says: "The status of the British pound sterling as a major global funding currency... is expected to provide funding flexibility for the UK government during the heavy sovereign issuance expected to flood international debt markets in 2009.

    "Nevertheless, given that both fiscal rules are expected to be missed, the government will need to find an adequate replacement for the existing framework in order to ensure long-term sustainability of the public finances."

    ....That said, there is a part of me that fears our manufacturing sector has been so stripped bare by the past decade, in which strong sterling and poor government management caused an almost 10-year long industrial recession, that there are too few firms left to benefit from the fall in the pound. Now, that would be truly worrying.'


    Edmund Conway realises that there could be a hole but he is hoping against hope that somehow the UK can be resurrected. Cynicus you point out that we are so deficient in goods & services that a weak GBP will not save us. The econmic elite are still in a delusion that it will, until there is hard evidence S&P will not downgrade our rating. It must surely be a matter of time. This could take until 2010.

  12. Cynicus,

    How do you see UK plc panning out? Are we going L shaped, a la Japan, or A shaped, a la Argentina.

    I have started reading about the period of 1999 when Argentina went to the dogs again. This was when people began banging pots in the streets.

    If we have a run on the Pound, Gilts crash to say 6%+, inflation rockets and the IMF are called in, what would happen in the UK.

    Do we reference the 70s or because the North Sea is ebbing we can't bounce back.

    I would like to read what scenarios you see.

    Thank you

    Death to Bubble Addicts

  13. I have just discovered your work and added it to the Facebook group Resources on the financial and economic crisis and solutions to it.

    Best wishes,


  14. The decline of the UK manufacturing sector and its disproportionate role as an engine growth is unfortunate.

    However even 'saint' countries like Germany are being hit hard. With everything nowadays being so twisted; I have an intuition that 'sinner' economys, of which UK plc is a prime example, may avoid their richly deserved just deserts and that saints may indeed suffer more. Germany may well need that wedge of cash Brown was begging to be spent, just to help keep things ticking over till people start ordering again their BMs and Porsches.

    In the UK's favour we have a freedom of movement on currency that the Euro zone can only dream of. Pity the Russians and their roubles.

    UK also has competitive advantages in the areas of language, location and climate.
    When the oil price was high, people started moving operations back on shore to save the transport costs. Even UK coal started to be viable again on the markets. Could there be more of this in the future?

    Climate change will favour certain areas over others for economic activity and I'd bet the UK will fare better than other regions.

    Finally, once the penny drops that the dollar is a busted flush, people will search for any safe haven and the pound may be the recipient of some these funds providing that invester confidence is maintained....

  15. I can't see why I shouldn't agree with your common sense arguments, but I am interested to think about how vulnerable we are. Just a few points not necessarily connected:
    1. People have to put their money somewhere if they are afraid for the future, so if they are not spending (helping the economy) they must be savers, however low a return they get. (helping banks and lending)
    2.Although the boom has depended on cheap foreign goods to some extent, this has happened quickly and recently and a lot of the goods almost be definition are not essentials. ie we do not buy building, services, food, domestic tourism etc from abroad. I do think people have been suspending disbelief about a lot of stuff and how cheap it is and enjoying it while it lasts. A lot of it they can quite quickly just stop buying. The question is how far this affects our standard of living. (depends on how addicted you are to buying and throwing away stuff in fairly rapid turnover)
    3. Doesn't a lot of our national income derive from investments abroad? ie ownership of mines, factories, companies abroad. Parasitical and capitalistic but useful.
    4. Cheap foreign goods do have to be transported. If we can hang on until oil goes up again we might be ok.
    5. How can our country stand out now that developing countries have caught up with the technology, which is what has kept the West ahead. If we become a hub for education, our good people will leave and go abroad.
    6. The scary thing is that the answer to a lot of these questions is protectionism i.e. Eurozone USA - isn't Obama supposed to be protectionist - is the US is drawing in its horns and reverting to isolationism and the domestic markets - something that the UK can't easily do.

  16. Dear Cynicus,
    Two trade figures are not proof. You are confusing short term money flows with longer term competitiveness.

    We will see how competitive we are in due course.

    I agree though that printing money is Gordon Brown trying to save his skin in any way he can; must be an election soon.

  17. Clearly a huge assumption has been made througout all the posts and blogs on here.

    That you know everything that Brown & Co knows. Do you all really think that a superpower like the UK would roll over so easily to some other nation just because we have a rubbish economy??

    No chance.


You are more than welcome to comment on the posts, but please try to stay on topic....I will publish all comments, excepting spam and bad language, and my moderation of the comments is just to exclude these.

Please allow up to two days for the comment to appear.

I have had a request for an email address for the site and have created the following:


I have ommitted the @ symbol to avoid spam....

For general purposes I would suggest using the comment form, but will occasionally look at this email account. Please be clear what is for publication and what is not, though I will also not guarantee publishing of email comments, unlike the comments through the form! Thanks.