Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The fallen £

The fallen value of the £ is very noticeable. It has dropped from 14 Swedish kronor last year to 12 now, which is a decline of 14%, and matters are worse than that because the Swedish economy has also had its problems.

But it gives the lie to the notion that Britain's difficulties are due to things like "world inflation", higher world food prices or higher energy prices. How come Britain has been affected so much more, when, unlike Sweden, it has its own oil and gas?

The real worry is that there seems to be little understanding of where the present bout of inflation has come from - not that I would claim to know.

The fall in the value of the £ against other countries has meant that all imports from the Eurozone and many other countries have risen just because of the adverse exchange rate. What has also happened is that the UK, amongst other countries, has experienced a classic land price boom, fuelled by over-liberal lending and borrowing. This has driven up land prices and promoted a building frenzy. The large housebuilding companies are now left with properties on their hands that they cannot sell at a profit, based on the price paid for the land plus construction costs. That is an actual financial loss and a real misdirection of materials and productive resources. Strangely, however, although there are a lot of houses that are difficult to sell, they have not become "affordable" and there are still calls for the provision of affordable housing. Clearly, the housing (land) market is not working as the free market advocates claim that it should.

It is also the case that since the Bank of England has no means of regulating the economy other than by altering interest rates, it has only the options of reducing interest rates and allowing inflation to take hold - which goes against its remit - or of keeping interet rates high and taking the risk of precipitating a recession.

A possible explanation of the current bout of inflation is that large amounts of money have been created by banks through allowing people to re-mortgage their homes and spend the proceeds on consumer goods and services. But those loans will have to be paid back and then the forces for recession will be accentuated.

So much for Gordon Brown's claim to have banished the boom-slump cycle. Such cycles are an inevitable part of the economy. However, they are worse than they otherwise might be due to the positive feedback loop built in to the land market, which can only be eliminated by the right sort of land value taxation. Which is not going to happen in the UK.

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...