Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The sinking pound

I have drawn attention several times to the falling value of the Pound against the Euro, which was worth about €1.50 when the Euro was instituted in 2002, €1.40 last summer and has now slid to €1.27, a drop of over15% in less than a year.

At last the issue is being noticed. There was talk on the radio this morning of allowing it to fall to 1 pound to the Euro, a devaluation of one third since 2002. In any case it should not be forgotten that the Euro has been subject to inflation of around 15% over the same period. This recent fall in the value of the £ against the € will quickly show up in higher prices in the shops, though it is good news for British producers and manufacturers, and exporters in particular.

Personally, I suspect that the Euro will itself drop before long, which will lead to a flight of investors into gold and commodities. It is a pity that Gordon Brown sold half the UK's gold reserves when the metal was at its rock bottom price, as they could have been sold now to support the currency.

Part of the present problem is that the € has gone up as people have shifted their US$ balances and has nothing to do with anything in particular that has happened here. However, some of the fall is due to the UK balance of payments deficit which has resulted in large sterling balances being held abroad. How has this happened? There has been a consumer spending spree. And some of it has been funded out of the property (land price) boom as people have borrowed to release equity from their homes.

Amongst the things that I was taught when I learned economics were that (1) Land is not wealth and (2) Not to borrow except to pay for something that would increase one's ability to produce ie actual physical capital.

If this were widely and properly understood, banks would not be lending money on the security of land as collateral and people would not be borrowing money to pay for holidays or to buy cars other than those used for business. So this latest problem would not have arisen and we would not be about to see substantial inflation.

The reason why people believe land is wealth is because it can be traded, often at a profit. But what is actually being traded is the capitalisation of the real or imputed income stream, known as rent, from the land, which is a different matter. It is the same thing as buying an annuity. The only way, ultimately, to prevent this nonsense is for governments to collect the rental income from land and use it as its principal source of revenue, instead of troublesome and destructive taxes such as Income Tax and VAT. Then the whole stupid practice of over-lending and over-borrowing would have to stop, bringing with it an end to these disruptive land-fuelled boom-slump cycles which appear to recur at intervals of around 18 years.

How would banks function in such a fiscal environment? Perfectly well, is the answer. When making loans they would need only to make an assessment of the likelihood of getting their money back and make a charge according to the risk. There would be no need even to charge interest as they could simply have a fee scale based on the cost of administration plus risk cover. They would no longer make spectacular profits and losses but would instead operate in relatively stable conditions earning a steady return for the work they did.

Interestingly, such a system would be in accordance of the ordinances of the major religions which have always condemned the practice of lending money for interest. Given the misery that is about to be inflicted on nearly everyone, it seems as if they were on to something.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...