Why Blog?

For some months I have maintained a daily post on this site. Sometimes I have reiterated a broad point of principle, at other times I have drawn attention to an emergent fact [such as point protectionism as a major factor in the Brexit debate], and on few occasions I have enunciated a new principle; but more often I have merely commented on the recent news. I have found it enjoyable - sometimes even cathartic - to have got my reaction down in writing and thus 'off my chest'; but in taking that route I have departed from the main reason for starting the blog. So I will go back to the beginning, then state my plan for the near future.

I had the immense good fortune to go up to Durham University, and specifically to the Durham Division of that university when King's College, Newcastle and the Medical School were fully parts of one federal university. Had I gone to Newcastle I would have been able to study Economics as a single subject, and my entire career would have been different. In the Durham Colleges at that time there were well under 2,000 students, which meant that teaching resources were limited. Thus the only social sciences honours degree was in Politics and Economics; and furthermore the Economics syllabus had a heavy component of Economic History, while first year students also had to study Ethics or Statistics and a modern foreign language. This meant that we had a broad introduction to the field which has made me sceptical of the inner dogmatics of Economics ever since. We were well taught in Economics: my first year tutor became a distinguished regulatory knight under the Thatcher regime and the most of the rest of the staff were comparably competent and qualified.

By the time I graduated I had become so sceptical about Economics that I applied for - and, to my eternal surprise, got - a research place to study how Economics had evolved into what it was. At that time successive governments were keen to expand the university system and money was no problem; there was a shortage of able and willing graduates [this was long before the massive influx of overseas students provided an over-supply of good graduates alongside the growing cohort of UK students]. Hence, via scholarship funding and a research fellowship I was able to complete a Masters degree and a Doctorate: and I was invited to take up a lectureship before my doctoral thesis was completed. As a teacher who rose through the hierarchy of a good university to become Dean of Social Sciences and Pro-Vice-Chancellor I maintained my agnostic approach to Economics as the neoKeynesians urged governments into the inflationary spiral that undermined the entire system after 1973. I was PVC at the time of the first imposition of Monetarist-inspired cash limits on university spending, and was instrumental in getting a cash bonus for the university as one of the few that believed what the politicians were reciting from their Monetarist mentors and capped its spending plans accordingly. By that time the amiable notion that academics had 'tenure' of their posts for life, however ineffectual they proved to be, was ended; and the state funded a round of redundancies that marked the opening of a new era of 'efficiency' that covered a reorientation of Economics towards the free market dogma. It took a few years to impose the predominance of that doctrine: the first Thatcher cuts were opposed by 364 Economists who signed a letter to the Times which was ignored by the new establishment, and within a generation their opinions were either consigned to retirement or radically revised in accordance with the new dogma.

I saw no place for myself in that world, I so moved with modest success to the City of London where I found significant fulfillment. But I have constantly developed my contrarian views on Economics; which I expressed at length in the book that is advertised on this page: The Brexit Vote and Economics. In June, 2016, I took the view that the rejection of the government's advocacy of the Remain side in the EU Referendum was also, implicitly [and perhaps more importantly] a rejection of the underlying orthodoxy that gave us Thatcherism,the financial bubble and the inevitable crash of 2007-9, austerity and widespread disillusion and cynicism to the political class. I stated my own conclusions. Then I took the decision that instead of constantly trying to issue updates of the self-published text, I should make a constant commentary on my views and on the real-world events that I believe my text illuminates. This week the Tory Party Conference is likely to provoke some splenetic reactions on my part, so I have decided to take a more cerebral line, with less frequent but deeper ruminations on the site. We'll see how that goes....

A Long Week

Harold Wilson, allegedly the Queen's favourite prime minister, said "A week is a long time in politics".

The present prime minister must be finding the weeks constantly elongated as events turn against her and more of her ministers begin publicly to cavil at the inheritance of Osbornian austerity that almost cost the Tories the election. The precarious position of the party in parliament makes it almost impossible for the leader to dismiss querulous ministers; and the chancellor [whom she expected to be able to dismiss, following an electoral triumph] is now in a position strongly to influence the Brexit discussion.

A delegation from the City of London is off to Berlin this week, to make an assessment of the appetite of the Germans for a form of Brexit that would leave the UK firmly within the European Economic Area. The shock of the Brexit decision has been followed by months of assiduous work in the City, and there is no doubt that the loss of [at least] tens of thousands of jobs from the financial services would be a calamitous blow to the whole British economy. The financial bubble that has been inflated ever since 1986 in compensation for the destruction of the materially-productive bulk of the economy has provided a support mechanism for the economy, and its removal would have utterly catastrophic consequences. The chancellor is now fully aware of this; but it is doubtful if the prime minister could comprehend this: it is also questionable whether all three Brexit Ministers - Davis, Johnson and Fox - fully understands the importance of the point. Certainly the insouciance displayed by Davis on the matter is alarming.

But the clock has been ticking, and those who are capable of recognising the signs of impending crisis have begun to read them the same way. A minority of Labour MPs also showed last week that they have a pretty good idea of the problem, when they voted against the party line to stress their concern that Corbyn's left-wing contempt for capitalism could impose on the Labour party an interpretation of Brexit that would plunge the country into chaos and a whole era of impoverishment. A tiny number of extreme lefties would be happy to impose the hair shirt austerity of the Stalin era in Russia on the British nation; but they would not have many followers, and the Momentum movement has not yet gained sufficient power to unseat all the rational Labour MPs if there were to be an early general election.

All the rational Conservatives have come to realise that their precarious alliance with the Paisley faction must last for at least the two years while the Brexit negotiations continue. If the government can gets its act together in the next month, recognising that the maintenance of momentum in the economy depends on being in the European Economic Area [on the best terms that can be negotiated: though they will not be ideal], there is a chance that they will gain sufficient goodwill in the mass of the population to have a chance of winning an election. That is conditional on the change in policy that I mentioned yesterday: there needs to be more money for public sector workers' pay, as Gove and Johnson are not pointing out. And there must be a resolution of the student fees issue: the reckless promise of Labour in the last election, simply to abolish those fees [and probably write off the debts owed by past borrowers] puts the Tories in an impossible position as long as they retain the Osborn line; so they are going to have to admit that so many holes are being poked in austerity that it might just be wise to admit that the policy is not acceptable.

Wars are fought by selling government bonds, to buyers who accept the extreme urgency of the situation. The present situation is no less alarming than a war. The government must be willing to replace austerity by a combination of flexibility on key areas of public spending and a massive investment in infrastructure, coupled with the development of a facility for the state [directly and through the banking sector] to invest heavily in all the firms that have credible business plans to advance technology and innovation. Mrs May's early decision to let Japanese speculators buy ARM was a very bad indication of her incomprehension: she needs to be educated; otherwise, like Anthony Eden, she needs to be taken away on leave. And there are not many weeks left for one or the other of these steps to be taken. The Tory party has saved itself by ruthlessness in the past: the era of "you've never had it so good" followed on very soon after the Suez catastrophe. They need to find the same strength again: with or without Mrs May.  

Old and Useful?

Britain has passed half a century dismantling industry, and pensioning-off the people who understand it. I spent almost half of that time in Sheffield, mostly when it was still a city that provided jobs for more than 75,000 highly skillied artizans and several thousand of the world's leading metalurgical, ceramic and glass scientists. To see that accumulation of expertise dissipated was as big a tragedy as it was possible to experience in any economy. The world continues to need those skills: demands are growing for expertise in using old and new materials for ever more challenging applications in millions of structures and machines that are required to operate in space, in deep mines, under the oceans, in radioactivity and within the human body. A profoundly ill-advised view that 'smokestack industry' was a thing of the past prevailed, most notably in the nineteen-eighties. The twerps who adopted that view assumed that Lancashire mills which operated on the unsustainable [and always incredible] business model of importing raw cotton for processing and re-export were on a par with innovative firms that developed new forms of special steels or carbon fibre: the whole range of industries was considered dispensable. That delusion cost the country dear as the immaterial business of casino banking took pride of place in the limited perspective of the government, taking precedence over the solid virtues of the world's leading insurance market and the world's most effective system of commercial law. The City of London is important because it is of huge value to the real economy, especially for the things that it did well in 1700 and 1800 and 1900 and even in 2000: though by then sleight-of-hand betting had taken the top fashion spot and was by far the most lucrative area of 'finance' which attracted very clever people who made bonuses on the turnover that they could conjure into being; literally without the use of any material commodity other than computers and electricity.

While 'the City' only ever accounted for around the same proportion of the turnover of the economy as the construction sector, it was much more highly rated by bedazzled politicians: most notably Gordon Brown and his acolyte - who was duly promoted to be 'City minister' - Ed Balls. Having thrown off the image, and most of the substance, of being a trade-union dominated organisation the 'new' Labour Party embraced the adventurism of those who were later to be reviled as 'casino bankers'; while it still depended on finance from the unions. Tony Blair escaped criminal investigation into the means that had been used by his agents to obtain donations from people who were coincidentally ennobled, but when he had gone from office and his peculiar means of funding dried up almost completely the unions conspicuously remailed Labour's major funders. But these latter-day unions were very different from the unions that had ineffectively opposed de-industrialisation and the destruction of their own members' jobs in the 'eighties. Between 1985 and 2005 trade unionism ceased to be a significant force in the private sector even while the former nationalised industries passed into the private sector.

The new area of strength for 'organised labour' was in the expanding public sector, where [unlike most firms owned by shareholders] government departments and state agencies provided accommodation for union officers and allowed staff time off work for union activities. The coalition government has decided - probably correctly - that the future economy will not be able to bear the cost of the pension payments that had been provided for in state employees' contracts; so those entitlements are being reduced and the unions are planning to defend their members' contractual rights. This campaign by the unions attracts minimal sympathy, and virtually no support, from the mass of the population who are experiencing declining living standards while they learn that part of the increased cost of living is raised taxation from which [among many other things] civil service pensions are funded.

When trade unionism was based in industrial plant pretty simple arguments could be advanced about the division of the income that the operation generated. Political Economy taught that there were three factors of production: land, labour and capital. For industrial production, for wholesale and retail trade, and for catering and entertaining establishments, land was bought or rented by the providers of capital for the business and the cost of land was accounted as part of the fixed cost of the firm [which varied with the location, so that operators of shops on Oxford Street in London paid vastly higher rents per square metre than did the owners of wareouses on the fringes of Pennine mill towns]. Once the site was paid for the construction and adaptation of the buildings on it were components of the capital stock that the owner had to provide, along with the machinery inside and around the premises, the materials to be worked on, the fuel to power the operation and the services [such as water supply and lighting] without which it could not operate. The vast contribution that capital made to any business i the real economy was visible and could be recognised. But that investment was useless unless people possessed of the necessary skills, experience and strength made themselves available to work there. By an iterative process of debate, dispute and discussion -sometimes involving strikes, lock-outs, mass sackings, reinstatements, arbitration and intervention by the courts - mutually tolerable rates of pay to employees and rates of return to capital were settled. Workers realised that capital equipment and investment were necessary, even if the plant was owned by a socialist system, and they conceeded that any capital stock must be maintained by constant refreshment. Capitalism - as a system of economic organisation - recognised that a willing workforce was best to manage and so employers were in broad terms willing to agree with unions on fair terms and conditions of employment in that place at that time. The skilled gained relative to the unskilled, the fit relative to the less fit. The physically weak who were not able to compensate by developing intellectual skills were ill cared for by the system, as were the mentally less able. There was much unintended cruelty in the operation of the system, but there was also an opportunity for the majority to find a level of remuneration that they deemed acceptable.

In the present postindustrial era pay [for the employed] is the outcome of various forms of negotiation and 'comparison' of one category job description with another. It is widely accepted that jobs in the public sector are generally better paid that those that can be said to be broadly their equivalent in the private sector: and all sources agree that pensions expectations for public sector employees are better at almost all salary levels [except the most highly paid categories of business executives] than in the private sector. There are a few tens of thousands of people in Britain, a few hundreds of thousands in the European Union, perhaps a couple of million in the world, whose transcendant skills, talents and experience enable them to command whatever remuneration they demand. There are many others who are almost as well talented as the topmost elite, who are able to demand superior pay for their work. There are others who have created inventions or works of art that become so popular that the creators are massively enriched by the proceeds from their willing users: and yet others who have seized  the ownership of capital and access to natural resources by political manipulation [or even criminal activity that no state can prosecute] that legitimate commerce and industry need to buy from, to the enrichment of the owners. Much 'unfairness' is evident in the contemporary distribution of incomes and of wealth, especially in instances where executives fail to deliver the expected results for their employers and still walk away with huge remuneration. The widespread awareness of indefensible income differentials has created a sour mood through almost all of society, to a degree that it can poison progress in economic development.

The point to which this argument is trending is that if Britain is to adopt the one big Strategy that is readily accessible to the economy, it must recruit the people who can manage the greatest leap forward in marine technology in human history and it must take the risk of paying them whatever is necessary to engage them in the task.

My last blog set out trhe bare bones of the Strategy. Britain has the opportunity uniquely to exploit - in a sustainable manner, for the indefinite future - the massive surface area of the earth's oceans that are currently recognised internationally as the coastal waters surrounding the imperial lagacy of oceanic territories. To vindicate this Strategy The UK needs first the naval and military forces that can enforce the assertion of sovereignty, over the long term.  Then it would be absolutely essential to build the industries and develop the technologies on which the Strategy absolutely depends  for economic viability. It is inescapably necessary to recall scientists, engineers and artizans who were dumped unceremoneously from their careers up to four decades ago. To attract people from their retirement, or from the alternative careers into which they have settled, or to bring many back from the foreign states that benefit from the skills that Britain spurned, will require payments up-front from the hard-pressed national budget; of salaries and potential bonuses that are enough for the purpose. Some patriotically minded individuals  might chose to return some of their remuneration to the state; but that option should be left to them, it cannot be assumed that people who have been rejected will suddely embrace the political class who will be bidding for their skills.

Unless the nation can be motivated to recognise and to support the proposed Strategy, the concept does not have a hope of taking off. A first step in demonstrating that it can be implemented is to show that Britain's Got Talent: not just in ephemeral popular entertainment but in all the areas that must be drawn in to the greatest and most grimly serious venture in the nation's history. The young have been denied most of the skills and all of the experience that existed on the shop floor and in the works laboratories in Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow and hundreds of other urban centres throughout the United Kingdom. One motivation for Scottish Nationalism is a reasonable desire to cut free from the corpse of a failed state: and the best motive for Scots to remain in the United Kingdom would be the probability of benefit from participating in the Strategy.

I have been privileged for several years to support a charity called Age Exchange that [among other things] brings elderly people into contact with the young, including many who have no extended family and therefore no familiar folk traditions or reference-points outside their immediate experience, to let them begin to understand what life was like within living memory in the places they now inhabit and thus open up some perspective. Something similar needs to be done on a national scale to enable depressed young adults to believe that the capable and experienced people exist who can help them to develop themselves as contributors to a technical wonderland that can be the envy of the world: while it brings them a world class standard of living.

This is all feasible technically and organisationally. The political will to bring it into effect is much more problematic.

The EU and the Eurozone. What Should be Done Next?

Superficially, the easiest thing that could have been done by the EU in the last 24 hours would be to force Germany to open its coffers to 'save' the euro by buying all the bonds that may be issued or guaranteed by the puppet governments that have been installed in Greece and Italy, and may be installed in other economically failed countries. The spokespersons for the 'markets' - and representatives of the Obama Administration - will continue to press for a 'solution' on these lines whenever it appears that the new solution to the euro crisis is open to question.

In the 'markets' so-called hedge funds and other speculative investors have been stockpiling at-risk bonds when they could buy them cheaply, in the expectation that Germany would eventually be forced to 'support' them at higher prices. Germany has declared its commitment to the European Union, and to the euro, for decades and the marketeers think that pride and stubbornness will not let them back off from supporting the new dispensation. The Obama team of died-in-the-wool pre-2008 bankers have done pretty well to consolidate the position of their former employers since the big bail-out of the rationalised banks that were cobbled together in 2007-9.But they are well aware that the ramshackle result could begin to crack if the euro was disrupted, causing the US banks' holdings of euro debt to loose value. The US has been calling-in the moral obligation that is supposedly owed by Europe for US investment in defence during the cold war of 1947 to 1991. Time has moved on. The sensibly selfish basis for US policy, past and present, is clearly recognised and contemporary Europeans do not recognise a continuing obligation.

Germany in 2011-12 does not recognise an ongoing obligation specially to assist European countries that suffered occupation or destruction during the second world war. Huge reparations have been paid, the balance sheet has been cleared, and the anti-German current within Greek protest against financial stringency is self-defeating.

Germany should in no way feel obliged to assist a bankrupt state that got itself into the mess that its proconsular ruler is trying to resolve. Greece is uniquely in that perilous situation at this moment. The Greek people will suffer dramatically lower living standards for an indefinite future because Greek governments doled out more resources than the country had generated continuously for the past three decades. Though different parties won elections from time to time, each government had a popular mandate; and it is the misfortune of modern citizens in any state that they collectively carry responsibility for the accumulation of debts that the elctorate consented to being accumulated.Any Greek could have discovered that their huge salaries, early retirement ages and evasion of taxation were not only exceptional but also blatantly unaffordable when set against national economic data. The typical citizen may have chosen not to take cognisance of the facts: that dereliction alone stimulates fair-minded aliens to inhibit any sypathy for the unfortunate elderly who now have dramatically reduced living standards and no prospect of mitigation in their lifetime.

Economists have been allowed to dominate economic policy with the assertion that 'markets' are efficient. They have handed it down as 'scientific fact' that governments should so arrange affairs that markets are the drivers of the economy. This is utterly ludicrous. Markets are creations of human beings, and only have any life to the extent that human beings take part in them. The people exist under the protection of the state, they can make contracts because the state and its courts-of-law recognise them as legal persons. The companies that exist in markets are licensed to exist by the state. The contracts that people and companies make are only enforcible if the state's courts recognise them to be valid. The state has an unqualified precedence over any business structure and this is an inescapable fact: for Economists and their dupes to presume otherwise is profoundly dangerous.

People have an infinite capacity for cheating, crookery, and fraud; as much as they have the capacity to be creative in the arts and sciences. A few hundred people - mostly science graduates, many with PhDs - have become adepts in black arts that enable them to create derivatives and credit default swaps. They can - and some of them do - set up deals that are designed deliberately to exploit other market participants. They invent and trade in fantastic 'instruments' such as 'shadow shares' that enable a pension fund to put its money into bonds but in parallel with that to buy notional shares, with a promise that if the 'real' bonds fail and the notional shares retain value, then the firm that has sold the shadow share package is contractually obliged to give the pension fund value equivalent to the gap between the value of the bonds that they hold in comparison to the then value of the notional shares. The idea that any financial firm would be able to deliver on such a promise in the event of systemic market failure, without the sort of government support that the banks were given in 2008, is absurd. The contract - and the pension fund with it - would most probably be wiped out. But while the contract is operational [and untested] fees are paid to the conjurers, the pension fund managers get their salaries and the Trustees draw their fees or allowances: only the fund members stand to lose.  The financial services providers have become even more blatant than they were before 2008 in the absurdity of the 'products' that they have offered; and the gullibility of their clientèle seems to be undiminished. The providers made Greek and Irish state debt appear to be sounder investments than they were, by enabling the holders of the bonds to 'hedge' those purchases with derivatives or ghost shares.

Markets that include such cajolery and sheer brass cheek among their trading methods, selling 'products' on which millions of peoples' future incomes depend which have no substance, are profoundly 'imperfect'. It is blatant that knowledge and understanding of the products and of the risks that are inherent in them are not equally understood by purchasers and the people who unknowingly depend on the outcome of the contracts. Essential rules of the system must be defined by the state, the traders must continue to be licensed by the state and the products must be subject to classification by the state. The infantile version of the Tobin Tax that has been proposed in the EU would have no significant impact in regulating the markets as they have evolved in London and New York. It would primarily be a regressive imposition on the day-to-day bank and insurance transactions of the mass of the population. If 'complex products' are to continue to be regulated as financial assets, much more intrusive regulation - more comprehensive than what is currently being proposed by the EU financial regulator - is needed.

But a completely different approach would be more sensible. At the very least, derivatives and most 'swaps'.and many futures and other 'asset classes' should be classified as betting slips; which is the simple truth. As bets, they should be regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission, not the Financial Services Authorities. They should be subject to gambling tax and not susceptible to regulation by the EU Financial Services Commissioner and his empowering legislation. By trying to exempt Britain - specifically the 'City' - from any new restrictive EU financial services regulation David Cameron has had a Pyrrhic victory. He has not got any significant exemption for British financial services [which he repeatedly points out is 10% of the economy] and he does not have any inkling of the basic fact that much of the 'industry' that he is trying to protect is not finance, but gaming. The appropriate regulatory change should speedily be implemented: then the EU system of financial regulation would not apply.

It would make an amazing positive change to the continentals' perception of Britain and of the activities of the City if the suggested reclassification were to be carried out. If the British Treasury and Cabinet Office will ever be capable of taking this point, they can frame a regulatory regime that will be seen by the rest of the EU as exemplary. Britain's detractors would be wrong-footed and the rehabilitation of the UK would be facilitated. The City need not suffer any great loss of business, insofar as the players can convince their clients that the betting slips that they have been buying to hedge their investments will still serve the same purposes under a more appropriate and honest regulatory regime. I have only a scintilla of doubt that the City lobbies will oppose any reclassification of their 'proprietary' activities because their pride will be offended by their being classified as bookmakers and their greed will baulk at paying higher taxes on a different basis and possibly experiencing some loss of business. But the City and the government have a golden opportunity to escape the very real threat that the new Europe will much more massively deflate the City's income under its tightening and uncomprehending regulatory regime.

Away to the west Dublin has developed huge 'financial services' expertise that is currently underemployed. A swift-footed Irish government - safe within the carapace of the revamped eurozone - can go a significant way to develop a high-level bulk betting regime that could capture a great deal of the market that the City of London stands to loose. That threat [and the possibility that the Swiss may dabble in these markets]  may help to persuade the City that here is a way forward.

Gambling

Today's news contains much good, and many items where it is clear that risk is being accepted by governments on behalf of populations who have little understanding of what is at stake. We will take three instances.

One.
27 October 2012 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 'Big Bang' in the City of London and the wider British financial market. A tightly managed group of self-regulated professions whose members largely bore personal financial responsibility for their actions [and set their own ethical standards] was replaced by an open marketplace. Foreign firms bought the stockbrokers and jobbing firms and began to use them as bases for gambling on an ever-expanding scale on their own account, abandoning the former focus on customer relations. Their leaders spoke about accepting and managing 'risk'; until 2007 when their frozen gambling debts were so great that governments had to bail them out to prevent systemic collapse of the economy. Because they paid a huge amount of tax on their reckless transactions the financial markets became the great favourite of British governments [especially the Brown-Balls Labour lot]; and it remains conventional wisdom that their 'markets' are essential components of the British economy. So there is yet more risk eventually to be absorbed by a debilitated economy; and little evidence that the politicians have a better understanding of this situation than did their predecessors in 1987 [except Ken Clarke, who is still there and may have learned a lot].

Two.
The Eurozone leaders have gone home to bed after a very late night session, content that they have shored up the system for an indeterminate period during which they will move slowly towards some sort of fiscal union. The longer the negotiations go on, the more risky situations will arise and the more scared the less-well-managed economies will periodically become, and the more the Germans will have their way in determining the shape and structure of the final deal.

Like it or not, there is now a 'two-tier' European Union. The in-crowd of the Eurozone have huge benefits and massive risks in their refreshed situation. Their banks have been bullied into surrendering 50% of the cash that the Greek state notionally owes them: and the whole Eurozone will now try to compel the Greek government to stay in the Euro and eventually pay up their remaining debts in Euros rather than in a putative devalued Drachma.

The outer circle is composed of the willing Euro-abstainers like Britain, the Czech Republic and Sweden and of the reluctant who have simply not passed the economic tests that Greece should never have been allowed to self-certify - especially Poland. There is little probability that the outer ten will have the slightest wish to seek the sort of coherence that is essential among the insiders. Some of them will still seek admission to the Eurozone. Some may form informal alliances, such as the former members of EFTA who joined the EEC together in 1973 [Sweden, Denmark and Britain] and may forge a new relationship with the other ex-EFTA members Norway and Switzerland who are in the European Economic Area but outside the European Union. If this step were taken it could prove an attractive alternative option for Poland but may not be attractive to the Czechs or Hungarians. There is all to play for: no option is risk-free, but there are now clear options.

Three.
The British Office for National Statistics has announced that Britain can expect the population to exceed seventy million by 2030. This is perceived to be 'good news', in that millions of immigrants and their children will be of working age, offsetting a steep forecast risk that there will be a doubling of the number of people over ninety years of age who will impose heavy costs on health and social services. This assumption entails huge risks; not least the fact that there is already a growing anti-immigrant sentiment. That politicians have either ignored the hardening of the popular mood, or stigmatised it as 'racist', is a major risk for the coherence of the country. There are real worries about Muslim colonisation of the country [and, indeed, of the Continent], which will not be assuaged by bland political reassurances. Demography is becoming dicey!

Capitalism in Crisis?

The waifs, strays, agitators and rent-a-crowd who have settled outside Saint Paul's Cathedral are living under various banners, of which one of the most prominent declares CAPITALISM IN CRISIS.

It appears that the majority of the squatters broadly equate capitalism with 'bankers' who are inferred to be rich, exploitative, dishonest and void of social conscience. It is probable that a great majority of the British population would endorse that view of bankers, or at least of 'City bankers' or 'wholesale bankers' [as distinct from local retail branch bank counter staff]. But is the equation of 'capitalism' with 'banker' in any way valid?

The City of London and New York banking sectors have been hugely successful in the era since the regimes led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan fostered liberalisation of the rules, enabling them to develop a completely reckless cats-cradle of interdependent innovations that made increasing use of developing computer software and passed way beyond the ken of inadequate regulators. Few people could explain how this system crashed and what was the nature of the collapse: but everyone has experience of the consequences, and can see the pathetic attempts of political systems to capture some sort of control over phenomena that they do not understand. The Economists do not fully understand them either: some Economists understand some features of the system and of the crisis very well, and have sensible policy suggestions: but nobody can definitively say to what extent this or that 'expert' has the right answer.The debate is close to stalemate; but it is increasingly obvious that the crisis occurred in 'banking' even though it subsequently threatened the existence of the economy as a support mechanism for human beings.

Few people in or out of politics, inside or outside the 'Economics profession', doubt that human survival in all the industrial and 'post-industrial' countries depends on developing the 'real economy'; and specifically on developing what is broadly [and therefore pretty meaninglessly] described as 'manufacturing'. No materially productive plant can be created without capital  in the forms of buildings, services to those buildings, machinery, supplies, ancillary services, trained labour [which is in itself expensive] and a cash float to pay the bills until sales revenue cover costs. Society cannot survive without capital. So what is 'capitalism', and does the addition of the suffix confer a morally or socially negative inferior - or even hostile - aspect to the necessary investment funds? It is highly improbable that any of the 'protesters' could answer that question in a credible manner.

The Importance of the Lottery

Unless a person has an outstanding artistic or sporting talent - which can bring about a meteoric rise to the Premier League, the Top Ten or the Turner/Booker Prize - the chances of anyone gaining significant net wealth [or even a high income] from conscientious work are negligible. Hence tens of millions of people participate in the National Lottery, which has enabled thousands to fulfil or to exceed their dreams and is seen by the unsuccessful millions as the only way out of the trivial round of work or the dire attempt to remain optimistically human in receipt of benefits. The apparently-conspicuous exception to this rule of modern life, which has been selected for vituperation from almost all other segments of the population, is so-called 'banking' where bonuses and incentive payments, rather than conventional salary-and-pension packages, have provided a minority of staff the 'telephone number' annual remuneration to which so much publicity has been given
.
Most of the activities for which the huge incentive payments are made are various forms of gambling: using cyberspace betting-slips known as derivatives, options, futures and swaps. The players in these heady games do not bet with their own money. The bets are mostly entered 'on tick' in the names of the employing firms and they can be supported by the funds in the 'real-world' sections of the banks; and in the pension funds, sovereign investment funds and other sources from which the City derives its 'working capital'. Although the punters are awarded their bonuses according to the reported profitability of their punts, they are actually paid in deferred shares in their employer company [which dilutes the value of all pre-existing shareholders' assets] and in cash which is drawn from the profits that are taken in worldly money by the real-world banking business.
No betting tax is levied on these activities in which trillions of dollarsworth of bets are placed [and accepted]: while people of modest means must pay the appropriate duty on their lottery tickets and all their other bets in which they risk their own funds.
The complex of activities whose over-development enabled the financial crash of 2007-8 to take place has been described as 'casino banking', and regulators all over the world have belatedly acknowledged this simple fact. In the United Kingdom the Vickers Committee was established in 2010 to advise the government on what preventative measures would protect real-world, economically-necessary banking from the other, higher-risk activities that proved so ruinous.

 To nobody's surprise the committee has proposed the separation of essential banking from the other activities that financial services complex organisations undertake. This can be achieved by the separation of the two streams of business into separate companies, but most commentators expect a less dramatic solution whereby the different segments of a complex financial services organisation each perform in their own specific trading areas, with each trading unit sufficiently capitalised so that it will not become a drain on the reserves of the other sectors of the company.
This is a necessary first step towards ensuring that no bank would ever again be too complex to be transparent or too big to  be allowed to fail. But such separation is not enough to overcome the inherent risk of contagion from one unit to the others within a company, and thence on to other companies.
And even before the government has announced any programme for the implementation [or partial implementation] of the Vickers recommendations the focus of bankers' and regulators' attention is being diverted by the proposal from the European Union that there should be a tax on all banking transactions - in the widest sense of that term, so that derivatives and futures trade would be levied at the same rate as retail banking transactions, mortgage contracts and initial share sales. If such a tax were imposed throughout the European Union, including the City of London, it is believed that Europe would loose a massive amount of trade to jurisdictions where the tax was not imposed. The attention of the UK government immediately focussed on how to counteract this threat to the volume and profitability of the sector, with a consequential weakening of the focus on separation of 'real' and 'casino' activities.

A transaction tax on financial transactions was first proposed many decades ago by the US Economist Tobin, who suggested that the increasing volume of foreign-exchange transactions could be curbed by a small tax on each transaction. Putting a restraint on currency transactions was popular among governments and regulators because money-trading was increasingly being undertaken as a punt for profit rather than to make currencies available to 'real' businesses to fund their purchases. To impose such a tax on all finance transactions would make access to banking business and mortgages more costly for ordinary people and small businesses: which could push some of them into insolvency in the hard times that followed the credit crunch.
A Tobin tax could be appropriate for 'inessential' foreign-exchange trading: were it possible practicably to differentiate transactions that supported the real economy from 'casino transactions'. It is not possible to do this simply and clearly.

Another, more realistic, possibility is to charge the ordinary rate of betting tax on all categories of casino transactions [derivatives, swaps, futures, etc]. Betting tax has the huge advantage that it is payable when the contract is made, so the state would receive the revenue regardless of the outcome from the deal. It could be provided in the regulations that if the parties to any transaction could demonstrate that it genuinely enabled a real-world non-financial firm to spread properly-identified risk, the contract could then be exempted from betting tax. These cases could be dealt with retrospectively, with the tax repaid after any successful appeal.. This proposal directly tackles the need to differentiate the casino from real-world banking, and to discourage excess. So I will refer to it on future occasions