With the
economic going being sticky and global trade not being much of a help there are
now the cries for “doing something” which can be loosely translated into “doing
anything”.
There are
many people, notably in around Westminster ,
who believe that any spending is good by definition, especially if other people
can be forced to pay for it.
The sound
bite spin term is “kick starting” the economy.
This is a nonsense on stilts in that the economy has not stopped it is
still going. If it had stopped we would
all be starving, without energy or water and without hope. There are some parts of the world where this
has happened but not the UK
and Europe , at least not yet.
One good
way of making it happen would be to throw vast sums of money at grossly uneconomic
and unnecessary projects on the basis of debt in a way that commits all present
and future citizens to penury and penal taxation.
There are
problems in the economy and they are serious if not addressed soon. This because we could soon be in a situation
where the growth of the population together with all the commitments we have
created will persistently outrun any real economic “growth”. That is economic decline in real terms.
Pumping
money into a failing system that is leaking both money and resources on a large
scale basis will impact only on the monetary figures at the centre. Out there in reality it will mean a decline,
perhaps slow and steady, perhaps too fast for political and social stability to
remain.
The current
row over airports, their capacity, their location and the idea that the UK must have a major “hub” serving not just the UK but a wide area of Europe
is a case in point. Tim Yeo, who has
demanded the third runway for Heathrow now if not sooner to help our contacts
with China has been fingered
as someone with major personal financial interests in China .
Sinbad
Boris Johnson had proposed a raft of major projects that would involve huge
spending on “infrastructure” including a new airport. These are all in and around London ,
his political base and would benefit his “forty thieves” in the City of London with whom he is friends.
It is one
of the characteristics of the Big Spenders that the bulk of the spending
proposed on these projects is in London
and the South East. At present this is
the part of the UK
where the money classes are better off but on the back of a great deal of low
wage labour.
Also, they
involve an array of the major companies who are the big lobbyists and who stand
to gain very large sums from government spending racked up in this way. It sounds so easy really, pick out a project
that goes well with the media and the BBC, hand over the planning and cash and
let it rip.
There are
one or two small snags, however. One is
that the economy is flat lining now, all these projects will come on stream
only over some years of planning and work.
If the economy does improve then the bills will come in just at the
wrong time and they will be very big bills indeed.
The other
is who will be working on, managing and providing the equipment and hard ware
and all the rest? At present this in
unlikely to be UK
firms. The attrition of so many capital
industries has left us dependent on foreigners.
This will mean that the spending, while having some impact in the UK will entail
large outflows abroad.
Also large
outflows abroad in terms of any profits or interest payments will occur for
both structural and taxation reasons.
The companies involved are likely to be financially based abroad, for
example a Gulf State , or funnelling their money out one
way or another and legally.
One answer,
favoured by some is to give more money out in benefits to help boost consumer
spending now. This horse will not run
for the reasons that again many of the profits and interest arising from this are
already going out of the UK
and increasing. Where were your socks
made? They are not being circulated
within the UK .
The
difficult part is how to distribute any spending across the UK in such a way that not only does it support
employment but it adds to the circulation and is retained in the UK . Moreover, profits and interest are also
retained as much as possible.
Since the
mid 1990’s and arguably before our governments has been doing the opposite;
along with the banking, finance and many other industries. So it is not simply a question of “kick
starting” which means “kicking back” to the lobbyists, it is a question of a
radical change in the culture of government and financial management.
The picture
above is a push start, a process that is different.
I remember many a push start too - preferably downhill which seems to be the preferred route these days.
ReplyDeleteA kick back could be painful.