Monday 6 June 2011

Plan B - sensible, achieveable

Would someone please explain to me why the Osborne Deficit Reduction Plan is deemed to be so wonderful that it will never require any amendment to take account of reality unfolding?

1. Recession last Qtr - flatline this Qtr.
2. Oil price spike is HUGE and massively recessionary.
3. Inflation has rocketed way above OBR forecasts.
4. Japanese earthquake has throttled trade in many sectors - NB cars.
5. PIIGS debt crisis has got a lot worse - the UK is exposed.
6. Unemployment is projected to grow as public sector workers lose their jobs.
7. Major sectors like construction and retail report a negative trend.
8. The banks still aren't lending on home loans or to small businesses.
9. The international financial system is creaking .
10. The OBR's forecast that the "Budget for Growth" is that it won't produce any measurable impact.
11. Real living standards are falling rapidly and the cost of living is rising.
12. The UK's balance of payments is deteriorating.

Any reasonable assessment of these factors would indicate the need to revise the plan and revise the forecasts - OK the OBR has revised its growth forecast down a bit, but I simply don't understand why George Osborne thinks that a plan he put in place a year ago or more is so wonderful that there is never any need to modify it in the light of these substantial issues and events.

IMHO we're looking @ 500,000 construction jobs going, 250,000 public sector jobs lost, then add in retail retrenchment plus defence manufacturer's cuts and the shake out in banking, it's likely there will be 5,000,000 unemployed before the next election - a lot less tax coming in and a lot more welfare payments going out - and a lot more government borrowing to pay for it, not less.

The nub of the issue is the real effect on aggregate demand of £110 Bn being taken out of the economy in tax rises and spending cuts. The size of the multiplier we should use to work this out is widely disputed - some say zero - some say 2, 4, 6 or even 10.

A multiplier of 10 would equate to taking £1 Tn of aggregate demand out of the economy at a time of domestic weakness and international fragility - Osborne described the Irish economy pre-bust as a "glowing example" - despite the fact that the Eire economy is now a complete basket case, GO seems determined to repeat their mistakes in the UK - "there is no alternative" is all we hear - no Plan B - the outlook can get as bad as it likes - the colours are nailed to the mast, the wheel of the ship of state is lashed down - there will be no change of course regardless of what happens, regardless of how many icebergs are spotted on the horizon ahead.

This is not pragmatic government responding to the evidence of its own eyes and ears in the interests of its people - its a dogmatic doctrinal fanaticism determined to inflict a political ideology on the country at all costs.

The bailout of the banks cost us £100 Bn+ - our holdings in them are now approx £100 Bn - why aren;t we using this HUGE ASSET to pay off the debt over 5-10 years, whilst stimulating the construction industry to build social housing and create new jobs rather than making such rapid, deep reductions which are not neessary anyway, if we used the banknig assets.

A simply question for Mr Osborne - what sort of event would cause you to revise your economic policy ? Given what's happening already, clearly it would need to be catastrophic.

2 comments:

  1. As I have posted on the SF blog, the paragraph here:

    However, there are significant risks around the economic outlook. If growth faltered further and inflation also eased, then a mix of more quantitative easing by the Bank of England and tax cuts aimed at the poor and to help investment would need to be considered’

    has not been widely reported!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good, as ever, to have your take on events.

    I hope many thoughtful others will find their way to devondick.

    Not of course 'so wonderful', the GO line will have to be held until it breaks…

    The Treasury no doubt does have a slide-rule somewhere, its use would too complicated for daily defence...

    Whether or not there is value to be banked-on in our state banks, and whether or not either George Osborne or Ed Balls can be 'proved wrong' before the future comes to us, we should I think be facing-up to the need - always with us - 'to share pain and gain' with tolerable fairness 'at home' and tolerable reassurance 'for the markets'.

    We have a broad choice: to 'study the tabloids' and 'study the markets', and try to pander to their self-conflicted 'needs'; or to try to elaborate rational policies on the basis either of 'for the people' (future-aware egalitarian democracy ) or 'for some more than others' (rule not so much of the rich but by the money that in fact directs the short-term thinking of all under fear and greed).

    Any takers on this choice, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete