Category Archives: Economic

Britain, Defence, Economic, European Union, Government, Military, Politics

Labour’s defence spending. A ruse

UK DEFENCE SPENDING

Intro: Ministers are resorting to desperate measures to boost Britain’s military budget

“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget … We are under prepared. We are under insured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”

If these words had been said by James Cartlidge, Britain’s almost invisible shadow defence secretary, no one would have batted an eyelid. This sort of rhetoric is what Opposition politicians are supposed to say, whether justified or not.

But when it’s said by no less a Labour stalwart than Lord George Robertson – a former secretary general of NATO and the principal author of the Government’s recent Strategic Defence Review – it really is time for everyone to sit up and take notice.

Robertson is blunt and direct in his language when he says policy was being determined by the “corrosive complacency” of non-military experts in the Treasury. This has led to repeated delays to the 10-year investment plan caused by arguments over how to fund it.

It is of course a core part of the Treasury’s function to say no to the constant stream of departmental demands for more money. Someone has to keep the lid on burgeoning government spending and it falls to the Treasury to perform that role.

It should be said that this would be an understandable, even an admirable, characteristic if it were applied across the board to all forms of public spending.

What so infuriates military chiefs, however, is the double standards the Treasury seems to apply, not to mention the vast gap that separates the political dogma from reality. There could scarcely be a more vital government function than defence of the realm, for everything depends upon it from national to an individual person’s basic security; yet ministers pay lip service to its importance.

At the same time, too, they’ve squeezed defence spending to virtual oblivion. The proportion of national income devoted to welfare and public sector pay, coincidentally, has run out of control.

This didn’t happen by accident. It was done deliberately from the end of the cold war onwards. The resources once thought necessary for defence were instead diverted into social and health spending – a so-called peace dividend that allowed for a massive expansion of the welfare state.

Defence spending has meanwhile shrunk from about 5pc of GDP at the time of the Falklands war in the early 1980s to just 2.3pc last year.

Only belatedly have ministers realised their peril. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was warning enough. US threats to withdraw from NATO provided another wake-up call. Then came the national humiliation of being unable to field a single frigate to defend British interests in the latest outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East.

There seems to be plenty of money that can be found when it comes to inflation-busting increases in public sector pay, yet ministers struggle to find the resources needed to sustain an operational navy. Somewhere along the line, the Government lost its sense of priority.

While welfare spending, taxes, and borrowing mushroom, there are still no answers as to how to deliver even the relatively unambitious targets the Government has set for defence – 3pc of GDP by the end of the parliament and 3.5pc by 2035.

TWO

In acts of desperation, ministers are reaching for what they amusingly call “creative solutions”, apparently unaware of the unfortunate connotations the expression carries in accountancy circles – as in “creative accounting”.

If increased defence spending can somehow be kept off the public balance sheet, then miraculously it immediately becomes perfectly “affordable”.

In pursuit of such sleight of hand, the UK is exploring setting up a new mechanism for collectively funding defence spending with the Netherlands and Finland. There is also the possibility of Poland and other NATO allies joining in.

The attraction of the scheme is that under international accountancy conventions, the additional spending moves “off balance sheet” if the entity pursuing it is multinational. Typically, a minimum of three countries is required to satisfy these requirements.

It’s cajolery and a swindle, because whichever way you cut it, and however the entity is funded, ultimately it’s the customer that pays, and the customers here are the three countries involved. Eventually, the costs will bounce back on to the British taxpayer.

Still, if it helps support the additional spending the military so desperately needs, it would perhaps be perverse to knock it. But it is also just an accounting ruse that allows the Government to spend money that it doesn’t have. Markets are sensing hidden deception and that something is wrong, and rightly so.

As is apparent from International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis just published, Britain is in a dire fiscal hole, with fast rising taxes and borrowing struggling to keep up with increased welfare and other forms of government spending.

The peace dividend is gone, so the Government is desperately searching for ways of cooking the books in the hope that nobody notices. In practice, few are going to be fooled by this kind of window dressing.

Already, there are hundreds of billions of pounds worth of government liabilities conveniently shunted into the shadows of off-balance sheet finance, including the costs associated with previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would further add to them.

How Britain is going to pay for increased defence spending is anyone’s guess. Even the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said that the Government was still trying to figure out how to do it in conjunction with European partners. Many will be sensing what he meant is the charade of international defence procurement and financing.

Seeking solutions in Europe is becoming a bit of a thing with this Government. Getting closer to the EU is also proposed as a solution for the country’s lack of growth, even if it is hard to see how a little “dynamic alignment” in standards is going to make much of a difference. But this halfway house doesn’t get the Prime Minister or the country anywhere. It is certainly not going to get the UK out of the fiscal hole it has dug for itself.

In terms of the public finances, Britain is on the ropes. It is also widely considered to be acutely vulnerable to the current energy price shock. The IMF expects UK growth this year to be slower and inflation higher than any other major advanced economy.

Worse still, the tax burden is projected to rise by more than anywhere else in the world during the remainder of this parliament, and that’s on the basis of what we already know about the Government’s plans. It is eminently possible to imagine further shock announcements to come. And yet public debt is still expected to swell to more than 100pc of GDP by 2029.

A rational person would have thought that somewhere in this developing financial Armageddon, the money might have been found to at least keep the military operational.

But no, social spending priorities continue to eclipse all else.

Resorting to accounting tricks only makes matters worse.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics

The Government must allow markets to do their job

ECONOMIC

Intro: Fallout from the Iran war and the energy crisis that has followed is the ultimate test of the UK Government’s economic acumen

A famous story which used to be known by every schoolchild in the land, King Canute famously sat on his throne at the edge of sea during the early 11th century, and ordered the tide to stop coming in.

Needless to say, the tide did not obey. Some modern interpretations suggest that he wasn’t crazy or mad but was rather trying to demonstrate to his courtiers the limits of regal power. Even the King could not stop the tide.

Governments today need to recognise what little power they have in relation to the current energy crisis.

Although there isn’t a lot they can do, unlike King Canute and the tide governments are not completely powerless. But first comes the need for understanding. The energy crisis is a supply shock which changes the terms of trade, acting as a sort of tax that transfers money from net energy-consuming countries to net energy-producing ones. We are a net energy consumer. This crisis, then, makes us worse off, whatever we do.

And there are two major knock-on effects. First, the economy can be sent into recession as people react to the loss of income by spending less. Second, this “tax” takes the form of a rise in the price of energy that delivers an initial upward spike to the general price level, thereby increasing inflation in the short term, and carrying the danger of embedding higher inflation.

Although there is nothing that governments can do to stop the loss of net national income, there are things they can do to try to mitigate these two knock-on effects.

There could be a case for loosening fiscal policy to reduce the hit to consumer incomes and consumer spending and hence aggregate demand. The parlous state of the public finances, however, means that the scope to do that now is restricted. One way they could seek to limit both the hit to real incomes and the upward pressure on the price level is through granting subsidies and imposing caps on prices.

But this isn’t a free lunch because, unless the Government can justifiably and safely borrow more, which it really can’t at the moment, such things have to be paid for by the taxpayer. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul or, most of the time, robbing Peter to pay Peter.

This is actually still the case if the money for such subsidies is found by more borrowing rather than through new tax rises. This simply defers when Peter and Paul have to cough up.

Most importantly, the Government needs to let market forces do their job. The increase in energy prices acts as a signal to consumers to minimise their use of energy and simultaneously sends a signal to producers to boost the output of energy.

If the help to consumers takes the form of artificially keeping energy prices down, then the signal to economise on energy usage is smothered. More importantly, in our case the signal to producers is cancelled by the Government’s net zero policy, which is preventing the new extraction of North Sea oil and gas.

The best that governments can do in these circumstances is to manage the economy and their own finances most efficiently. Of course, they should have been doing this anyway, but in these difficult and turbulent times the importance of doing the right thing increases significantly. In the UK’s case, the fundamental error in the Government’s economic policy has been to preside over huge increases in government spending, while passing on a good deal of the burden to employers in the form of higher National Insurance payments.

One thing the Government could do to mitigate the consequences of the current energy crisis is to reverse this policy and bring in substantial cuts to government spending. This is not to tighten fiscal policy. Rather, the money saved should be redistributed to the economy.

The best use of it would be a reduction in employers’ NIC, which would reduce their costs and thereby lead to lower prices. It would also encourage firms to retain their workers.

This, too, would make a contribution to staving off the inflation danger. Over and above this, the principle responsibility lies with the Bank of England and its monetary policy.

History provides an illustration of how different responses to the same adverse shock can produce quite different results. In the 1973-74 oil crisis, all the oil-consuming countries of the West – including the UK – suffered an adverse terms of trade shock. They were all made worse off.

But different countries responded differently to the spike in the general price level. In the UK, inflation peaked t almost 25pc. In Germany, by contrast, inflation peaked at just under 8pc.

It has become clear that this UK Labour Government doesn’t really understand or believe in markets. You can see this everywhere, from the wish to control rents in the belief that this will somehow make tenants better off to the recent blaming of price rises on retailers.

This Government cannot avoid the adverse economic shock that higher energy prices imply but it can limit its consequences by letting markets perform their function.

It should abandon at once the headlong pursuit of net zero and allow new production from the North Sea, while cutting government spending and reducing business costs.

We should understand the political forces standing against such action; it is unlikely that the Government will do anything like this. But that doesn’t mean that there is not an alternative course of action available, if only the Government had the insight and the courage to pursue it.

Standard
Economic, Government, Politics, Society, United States

With or without tariffs, Trump has reshaped the world

GLOBAL ECONOMY

When the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs were illegal, he reacted with characteristic fury saying the decision is a “disgrace” and that the judges have been swayed by “foreign interests”. Trump then asserted that he has a back-up plan ready to go.

Over the next few days, he may well use all the power of his office to find a way of reimposing additional levies on everything America imports (on top of the 10pc he has already announced).

And yet, despite all of the drama of the decision, it may not make a great deal of difference. Tariffs have already fundamentally reshaped the global economy – and there will be no return to the old order now.

The decision of the Court was split by six votes to three, but was still clear enough. By relying on a 1977 law meant for national emergencies to impose sweeping tariffs on everything from cars to toys to microchips, Trump exceeded the power of his office.

In peacetime, it is the role of Congress to decide on import levies. Trump can try to find another legal route if he wants to; but for now, his original tariffs are dead in the water.

So, does that mean we can all go back to the global trading system that has reigned for the last half-century? One in which the rules-based order is back, where free and open trade is restored, and where globalised supply chains can operate without any barriers? Well, not exactly.

As much as the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, and the gatherings of Davos might want it to, there is no going back to the old system. The world has changed too much since “liberation day” last April for that to happen.

To start, Trump has already said he will impose an additional 10pc global tariff, on top of the levies he has already forced through. Is that legal? At this stage, no one really knows.

The president is planning to use a section of the 1974 Trade Act which allows him to set import restrictions for 150 days, and it will probably be another year or more before the Court delivers a verdict on that decision.

By then, he may well be using another obscure piece of legislation, and then another. Trump is determined to impose tariffs, and will use all the power of the White House to make them stick. He doesn’t care how often the Court rules against him.

More significantly, just look at some of the ways that the global trading system has changed over the 10 months since the tariffs were first imposed.

Europe has already decoupled from the US as much as it can, and, where that hasn’t been possible, made concessions to hold the fort.

Japan has opened up its market to American rice, and will feel nervous of putting up barriers again simply because the Supreme Court ruling might mean it can do so.

China has started to build its own computing and chip industry, replacing the American hardware that it used to depend on.

Global conglomerates, such as Britain’s AstraZeneca for example, have already committed billions of dollars to building factories in the US to make sure their products are on the right side of the tariff wall, and, with those contracts already signed, there will be no movement to scrap those plans now. The list goes on.

The supply chains that span the world have already been reconfigured, and it is too late now for a complete reversal, even if some wanted to do it.  

Many of the senior figures around Trump probably suspected all along that the tariffs were illegal, but decided to go ahead anyway. They knew they would never get Congress to agree to them, and figured that a year would be enough time for the levies to change the global trading system.

In that judgement, then, they were correct. Surreptitiously, or maybe with some good fortune, they may even end up with the best of all possible worlds. The global trading system will have been reordered, and largely in America’s favour, with the tariffs as the battering ram.

But the levies themselves, with all the price rises for ordinary consumers that they triggered, will have to be ditched. The result will be falling inflation, and the Federal Reserve will be able to cut interest rates. That will help going into difficult mid-term elections later this year.

It will be messy over the next few weeks. The Trump presidency is a chaotic wild ride, and no policy has proved more disorderly than tariffs. We still don’t know if the White House’s new legal tricks will work? Or whether the president will try to persuade Congress to impose tariffs for him?

We don’t even know yet whether the billions of dollars in revenue collected from the tariffs will have to be repaid by the American government, and if so whether it is the manufacturers, the retailer, or even the consumer who will get the refund? Even by Trump’s standards everything is up in the air.

One point, however, is surely cast in stone. We are not about to return to the old trading system any time soon.

Trump has already reshaped the way goods move around the world. The huge trade imbalances between the US and the rest of the world will keep on being reduced. Manufacturing will move closer to the consumer. Trade flow will reduce, and barriers will remain in place.

Whether that will be better or worse than the old system is open for debate. Prices may well be higher, but against that there may well be better paid blue-collar jobs, and countries will rely more on their own resources.

Either way, that is the new reality, and one that Trump has created – and whether we like it or not, it will take more than six Supreme Court justices to stop that process now.

Standard