In 2008 economies across the globe crashed as a worldwide shortage of cash liquidity brought the financial system to a standstill. Rather like a car that has run out of petrol, subsequent attempts to restart the engine have failed. Like any stranded motorist we have poured financial petrol into the banks by way of quantitative easing; but instead of kick-starting the economy we have flattened the battery and wasted fuel.
The root problem is that there is a blockage in the system. To stay true to our motoring analogy: it is just like the air lock that occurs when a car runs out of petrol. Fuel is unable to reach the engine and attempts to get back on the road are doomed from the outset.
A mechanic will tell you that the correct way to restart the engine is to 'pump prime' the engine. In the old days it means pouring just a dash of petrol into the carburetor which would then allow the engine to run for long enough to pull the fuel up from the tank. In economic terms this is what we need to do with our financial system. The fuel of course is money and the engine is economic activity.
In the same way that a fuel tank serves a car, the banks serve an economy. There is little point in filling either if the 'motor' is not running. We have to reduce the amount of money which has been practically free flowing into the banking system and instead look at ways of injecting it directly into measures that genuinely stimulate growth.
The Keynesian principle of pump priming was first employed by President Hoover, and in economic terms it has the same vintage as the old mechanic's advice. But that does not make it any less appropriate although it does mean that we need to tailor it to fit current circumstances and to meet today's requirements.
So what are these?
It seems likely that Britain will remain in a recession, certainly an economic slump, for some time yet and there is a clear need for measures that help us all cope a little better with this scenario. If we cannot boost the amount of money that people are able to bring into their households then we must reduce outgoings and ensure that when the economy does recover then everyone will feel the benefit. This means that we need to reduce fixed costs. And in our society, perhaps the biggest one of those is rent.
The government has made no secret that it wishes to reduce the welfare bill. The largest and perhaps the most problematic part of this move is tackling housing benefits. But rather than focus on a few families, wouldn't it make more sense to try and reduce everyone's rent? If so when we would all have more money to spend on the high-street and economic growth would follow. This is nothing new. Last time mortgage payments fell, the economy grew.
The government claims to be putting in place a number of infrastructure projects to fulfil the need for growth. Unfortunately most of these are some time away and will do nothing to reduce the fixed costs of normal citizens.
What I am talking about is a genuinely brave move that would involve tens of billions of pounds.
The government is due to implement further QE measures of about 75 billion later this year. I suggest we use a full third of this to pump prime: using the money to fund landlords to replace their existing borrowing. The money should target housing associations which currently borrow at 5.8% - replacing this with funds borrowed at just 3%. It would be on the condition that the reduction must be passed on in full. If this was rolled out into schemes to buy out private landlords, the impact would be immediate and very significant.
In a stagnant economy the smallest reduction in costs can have a massive impact. The government would be able to legitimately reduce its housing benefit spend and the local economy would grow as self funding rent payers have more money in their pocket. An improvement in cash flow would then allow the banks to start operating properly again.
The key to Keynsian economics is to achieve the objective in a way that is sustainable and counters inflationary pressures. There is a way to do this. However, in part because this blog is already too long and in part because I hope to obtain a reputation on the back of it, I shall leave the solution to that for next time.
Or get in touch if you can't wait that long!
Follow Phil Shanks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PhilShanksSays
Ed Miliband: Scottish independence will hurt economic recovery
British economy teeters on brink of recession
London 2012 may be greenest ever Olympics but UK still lags behind in ...
If there was a way for the buyer to buy their everyday needs for a much lower value.
Such a platform is being developed that operates in such a way that it provides the buyer with products at prices of 20% (80% discount) off the normal listed before any discounts. The seller is paid the full 100% list price profits without them needing to do anything more than list the items.
The platform is designed as a global economy that creates the demand through a process that only the Internet can provide and it's able to be built out to a global scale.
It's not done with smoke and mirrors but done by changing the dynamics of the supply and demand and in doing so generates employment for many.
The platform's mechanics is such that the product is fully paid for even before the buyer is found and all payments are locked in escrow. This allows local brick and mortar businesses to sell to local buyers and keep the money within the local economies while "leveling the playing field" between offline and online stores.
With the seller being able to receive full value and a buyer being able to buy as low as 20% it solves several key issues as well as directs taxes back towards governments.
http://yibiti.com
No wonder he supports Keynesian policies.
Hoover and the Roosevelt’s ‘new deal’ involved the construction of roads, schools, bridges, dams and so on, and yes, these created thousands of new jobs. But it involved fuelburning in the machinery which did the work, and America had so much hydrocarbon energy available it was virtually free. Keynesian economics meant burning oil to create jobs.
But unemployment was rising again by 1939, then Hitler kicked off WW2, the biggest job creation scheme of all time. So our fuel tanks were kept primed by the necessities of war, and our momentum of prosperity rolled on till the 70s when we hit trouble again. Then, a stroke of luck! North Sea oil, we prospered again while we blew that for a few years.
We don’t have a money-economy, we have an energy-economy, and our lives (literally) depend on injecting more and more of it into our system to create employment. That’s why job-creation schemes fizzle out. Our economy is in trouble because we are having to borrow money to maintain our delusion of prosperity (like the USA). As our access to cheap energy decreases, so our unemployment will go on rising.
This is sleepwalking us into a very unpleasant future where our energy sources can no longer support our employment or our population as a whole
http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
I was at a business event in Glasgow yesterday where once again I got a bit of a scalding for daring to challenge the current mantra in the UK that capital investment in infrastructure will provide jobs and growth and see us out of recession. Neverthelss, the two biggest attempts at using infrastructure in this way were Roosevelt's New Deal and Japan's massive infrastructure splurg from the late 90s - both failed in the core objectives. The New Deal did do all sorts of mediating good, especially for suffering people, but it did not generate recovery; re-armament for WW2 did that.
Keynes had relatively little to say on infrastructure as such. It, however, can be inferred that he would not have favoured it for stimulus, because quick-spend-impact is what he would have sought. He famously said that if necessary we should pay workers cash to dig holes to bury bricks in and then dig them up again - and if that didn't work just chuck handfuls of money out of helicopters.
At least Phil, I now know that there are two of us - hopefully your bigger than me so you can 'hander' me if the infrastructure zealots of IoD, CBI etc. get too aggressive at the next event ;-)
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/edward-harkins/15/40/635
I read a piece somewhere recently which argued convincingly that part of QE should go directly to tax payers in the form of a one off voucher valued at £300 which had to be spent on any consumable item the bearer wished to purchase. This could be used to buy a new TV, washing machine, kids clothing, a weekend away in the country and so on. This would be a way for the BofE and Govt. to pump money directly back into the economy rather than buying up bonds. Most people think the banks simply sit on this money that is gratefully received from the BofE, so why not give it to those who actually own a stake in UK Plc - the UK taxpayer?
I think the total amount this would cost was somewhere in the region of £10bn, a small part of the total QE spend.
It's just a thought.