And You're Working for No-one but Us

 “And you’re working for no-one but me” is George Harrison’s sign off to the first song on one of the greatest British albums of all time, the Beatles’ Revolver. But compared to what follows it has always struck me as rather a damp squib – lyrically one extended whinge about how Surrey mansion dwellers pay too much in tax. I suppose to be fair to the author, Harrison was very anti-war and he objected to unwillingly paying millions in tax – at the time the top rate stood at 92.6% – so governments could bomb people.

Nonetheless it is quite sad that of all the sentiments the Beatles expressed, “in the end” it was those of Taxman that had the greatest longevity. You need a lot than love, and giving war a chance now seems to be the spirit of the age (alright that was Lennon). But thanks to Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and the sprouting up of numerous tax havens around the world successful pop stars need no longer fret about governments getting their paws on their money.

But from the perspective of nearly sixty years, to sing “you’re working for no-one but me” with reference to His Majesty’s tax collectors seems faintly ridiculous. We’re definitely working for someone but there are people much further up the queue than HMRC. Perhaps their silhouettes need more light shone on them:

Landlords and Banks

The first thing we all need is somewhere to live. After rising above inflation for years, rents increased by 9% in 2024, the highest surge on record. The average rent now consumes over a third of renters’ income and more than half of it in London.

Though there are only 11 and half million renters in the UK, their numbers are inexorably rising. But they are still below the so-called “owner occupiers”. Except in many cases, while they occupy, they don’t own anything. The ‘owners’ are paying off a debt (which everyone calls a mortgage to avoid calling it a debt) to the actual owner of their property, usually a bank. And since interest rates have ballooned in the last few years – in the context of house prices inflating by 1,000% since the early 1980s – that debt has become much more expensive.

Banks, by the way, are sharing the pain by making record profits – HSBC amassed £24 billion in 2023, an 80% increase. This windfall results from the interest they receive on mortgage payments and loans being so much higher than the interest they pay on their savings accounts. Why this discrepancy should exist is a bit of a mystery. Theoretically, the two should cancel each other out and banks should not be laughing all the way to the bank because interest rates have been hiked. Maybe Sir Kier – who gave HSBC’s chief executive a knighthood in December – can enlighten us.

It’s good to know the people your monthly labours are paying off are having a hard time too.

Utility companies

Next on the identity parade are water and energy companies. In the past, these two public services were nationalized. But in our post-Thatcherite wasteland, sorry landscape, they are the play things of private equity firms who load the owners with debt and expect their captive customers – us in other words – to pay for the privilege of being compelled to use them. I just love the free market.

And when, as with Bulb Energy, these wealth destroyers experience liquidity problems, they can rely on the taxpayer, in the form of the government, to bail them out. Not that we have any say in the matter.

When the direct debits kick in every month, a lot of the damage to your balance is down to these two suspects. Energy bills are about 50% higher than they were pre-Covid. As with rent and mortgage payments, only in a semantic sense is this not taxation. Unless you want to live in a cave somewhere, or on the streets, you need a home and you need heating and water. Contrary to American monetarist proselytiser, Milton Friedman, we are not “free to choose”.

And it’s going to get worse. The average water bill will increase by 36% over the few years.

“If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,” Harrison sang in 1966. He meant, “I’ll raise the energy price cap”.

Corporations and things like eating

In common with all living beings, human beings need to consume if they want to continue living. But the cost of consumption keeps going up. If consumer inflation has fallen from its highs of a couple of years ago, that doesn’t mean prices will return to their former levels, just that they will continue to rise at a slower rate (although inflation seems going up again now anyway).

But the ever-increasing cost of essential goods is not solely due to ‘impersonal’ factors like the cost of raw materials. It is also down to the power of the huge corporations that dominate the market to increase costs above the ‘natural’ rate of inflation. For example, in the UK, “price mark ups” – price increases above the production costs to produce profit – rose from 58% in 2002 to 82% in 2020. The profits of the 350 largest companies on the London Stock Exchange have swollen by 73% since 2019.

This price gouging is symbolised by internet providers typically hiking raising annual broadband fees – now essential for doing most things in life, including work – by CPI (inflation) plus 3.9%. Why? Because they can.

What is now hitting home is that, contrary to the advertising, the Thatcherite revolution did not enthrone the consumer as king. Everyone knew that workers would have to suck it up, but the customer was felicitated. But that’s not how things have turned out. All regulators have a duty to protect the consumer but, as evidenced by the failure to compel banks to pay interest on savings in line with hikes in interest rates, this is just honoured in the breach. And with Reeves’s drive for deregulation, such a responsibility is going to become even more threadbare.

 You have to crane your neck to see the real beneficiaries.

Only in the perverse universe we now inhabit, could a privately educated ex-stockbroker who claims to be “keeping the flame of Thatcherism alive” and controls a company masquerading as a political party be the one to take advantage of this situation.

It’s enough to make you gently weep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inflation – what a Hout!

As I write, Britain is bombing a former colony – one of the poorest countries on earth, the scene recently of the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” according to the UN, which was caused by a war inflicted by the medieval limb-severing Saudi Arabian regime with British weapons. But trying to stop the genocide in Palestine is crime enough to resume the sorties. And they want ordinary people to actively help out with this never-ending war for civilisation!

But pause for a minute and consider the reason for ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’. The fear is that any continued obstruction to shipping routes in the Red Sea, which accounts for 15% of global sea trade, will reignite inflation, the bogeyman western governments and central banks have been trying to slay for the past two years or more.

I don’t want to minimise the problem of consumer inflation, to give it its proper name, which given that it causes massive rises in the cost of essentials like food involves real misery. This is exacerbated in an era when collective bargaining has been reduced to a rump of the economy so that wages can’t keep up with the price rises.

However, consumer inflation is not the only kind of inflation. Over many years, western countries have also been subject to asset price inflation – basically huge rises in the prices of shares and houses. In Britain, house prices have risen by about 1,000% since the early 1980s. And despite some ups and downs, the stock market across the western world keeps hitting record highs. In America it has enjoyed some of its best returns since the 1880s.

It is a basic axiom of our Thatcherite political mind-set that, in total contrast to consumer inflation, asset-price inflation is not something to dread. Quite the opposite, it is positively benign.

But, as we are now seeing, this is a travesty of the truth.

The inflation we like

So, unlike consumer inflation, the authorities have not tried to fight asset-price inflation. They have, by contrast, endeavoured to boost it at every turn and, if it seems to be flagging, to rekindle it with blatant forms of state intervention (despite the propaganda we don’t live in a ‘free’ market economy).

House prices in Britain have been deliberately stoked by restricting supply. It is a basic law of economics that if the supply of any good is suppressed, its price will increase.  This happened first through Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ policy and was then reinforced by simply banning local councils from building new council houses. More recently, more direct forms of buttressing house prices have been necessary, for example the government’s ‘Help to Buy’ policy which is a simple subsidy to housebuilders.

The rise in share prices was first underpinned by legalising the process of share buy backs, banned in the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. This has led to an internally-generated rise in share prices, caused by companies being pressured by their shareholders to ‘retire’ some of their shares, thus increasing the share price and the dividend payments to existing stock-holders. This practice has now become routine in the corporate world – according to economist Michael Hudson, publicly-listed American companies have, since 1985, retired more stock than they have issued.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, share prices have also been massively boosted by the artificial method of (electronic) money printing known as Quantitative Easing (QE). QE works by creating a huge mass of money, and by reducing the yield on government bonds, ‘incentivising’ investors to place it in the stock market or with other assets such as housing, or financing corporate mergers. According to investment manager, Kate Rogers, at venerable asset manager Cazenove, “Quantitative easing certainly stimulated asset markets. The billions that went from the banks to investors to buy the bonds was soon recycled into more attractively valued equities and property-boosting prices.”

This flagrant state intervention, practiced simultaneously in Britain, America, and Europe, is what lies behind the thriving stock market performance of the last decade or more (15% returns compared to an average of 9%). It is nothing to do with a healthy economy pushing up share prices. GDP growth, as we know, has been consistently poor for many years.

Of course, central banks are now pursuing the opposite policy to Quantitative Easing. ‘Quantitative Tightening’ involves selling assets to reduce liquidity in the financial system. This hasn’t (as yet but more on that later) produced a collapse in share prices. The conventional interpretation is that large companies are finally able to stand on their own two feet. But possibly QE under Covid was so huge – the creation of $834 million per hour – that the subsidy is still having an effect.

This is how it feels

The only way in which this asset-price inflation is commonly seen to have a downside is in terms of housing. The enormous rise in house prices – from an average of £26,000 in 1983 to £280,000 today – is regarded as a boon for the majority of people who already ‘own’ houses (or have mortgages on them). They can sit back and see their asset rise in value without having to do anything. But for young people who want to buy their first house – to ‘get on the housing ladder’ in common parlance – it’s a disaster. They frequently can’t even afford the deposit and are forced into permanent renting which, for those who have experienced it, is a distinctly unpleasant and insecure existence, apart from the fact that it soaks up most of your disposable income.

The last time houses were this unaffordable in Britain Benjamin Disraeli was Prime Minster.

However, with the resumption of consumer inflation and the central banks’ response of raising interest rates, the majority are no longer so content. They are, belatedly, seeing at first hand the malevolent side of asset-price inflation. Because house prices, with official blessing, have risen exponentially for decades, mortgages are a lot more expensive. And when interest rates rise above the minute level they have occupied for years, so do mortgage interest payments. This has resulted in huge increases in mortgage payments for many people. More than anything else, this lies behind the haemorrhaging of Conservative support in Britain. The private renting experience is going viral.

The share-owing oligarchy

What has happened to house prices might have its downsides, a defender of the status quo might argue, but surely there is little to object to in shares rising in value, the other main form of asset-price inflation? In fact there is. Undoubtedly some people benefit but the windfall accrues to a very small minority of share owners, including corporate executives who, these days, are all partially paid in share options. The original Thatcherite promise of a ‘share-owning democracy’ is now just a bad joke.

We now live in a resolutely two-track economy in which the stock market prospers while the real economy flounders. But given that rich people, who own shares, largely control the manufacture of public opinion, this experience doesn’t truly hit home. Thus the official opposition can come out with ludicrous non sequiturs like “when business profits, we all do” and are taken seriously.

The share price boom also comes at the cost of spiralling inequality. Since 2009, as the stock market has enjoyed nearly unprecedented gains, the wealth of the top billionaires in Britain has grown by 281%. In 2021, as actual economic activity was mothballed but massive amounts of QE ensured asset prices went skywards, the planet’s wealthiest people saw their balance sheets swell by $5 trillion. In Britain, since the pandemic, in the midst of the cost of living crisis, the number of billionaires has risen by a fifth.

Another trusted method of ensuring share prices go on rising – share buy backs – also damages the real economy. Because often the money companies use to buy back their shares (thus decreasing their number and raising their price) comes from funds that could otherwise be spent on business investment, they work to enrich their shareholder owners at the expense of wider economic health. Anaemic investment in production is a problem all over the western world.

The share price boom is not a win-win situation. It’s more like they win, you lose.

The economic trapeze

Central bankers – those who twiddle the dials of the world economy – are in a real quandary because of the actions of the Houthis. They believed they had, through historically moderate interest rates rises, solved the problem of the re-emergence of consumer inflation, as prices were heading downwards. They could then return to their prime function – ensuring that asset prices go on rising.

However, if global trade is impaired because of attacks on shipping in the Middle East, consumer inflation may return with a vengeance. If that happens, central bankers might feel they have no choice but to increase interest rates again, risking pricking the multi-asset bubble they have so carefully cultivated for the last decade or more.

It is a little appreciated fact that the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was sparked after a rise in interest rates. In America, they rose, incrementally, from 1 per cent in 2003 to 5.25% in 2007. Really large rises in interest rates do cause recessions, as evidenced by the experience of Britain and America in the early 1980s when, to prepare the ground for the Thatcher and Reagan ‘revolutions’, rates were increased to 17/18% in full knowledge of the carnage that would – and did – follow.

Given that western economies are much more indebted than they ever were when John Lennon was murdered, much more modest rises could have a catastrophic effect. 

According to economist Radhika Desai, if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to “required levels, the US can expect a recession that will make that of the 1980s seem like a boom”. The alternative to not doing so is, if the projected effect on world trade comes to pass, the return of chronic (consumer) inflation. “Both paths,” she says “will damage working class incomes and wellbeing”.

Other People's Money – The Degeneration of Thatcherism, part two

 And so we move on to part two of the chronicle of the Conservatives’ remarkably profligate attitude towards other people’s money, despite what Margaret Thatcher may have led you to believe in 1978. Here is part one. 

This revisionism is not solely directed at Conservative hypocrisy – tempting as that may be – it also exposes the barren hulk of the current Labour party, which promises to transport us back to the halcyon days of early David Cameron. Another of Margaret Thatcher’s famous lines was to describe New Labour as her greatest achievement. “We forced our opponents to change their minds,” she said. And we haven’t stopped paying for it since.

Housing

If any part of British society bears the unmistakable imprint of Thatcherism – and almost all do in some way – it is the housing sector. The policy of the ‘Right to Buy’ – allowing council house tenants to buy their homes at discounted rates – undoubtedly came to embody the Thatcherite promise of creating a ‘property-owning democracy’. In awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the elder George Bush commended Thatcher for putting “private roofs over British heads”. But the policy, because it also involved preventing councils from replacing the stock they had to sell, had one consequence that was the polar opposite of owning your own property – having to rent it.

The number of private renters has more than doubled since the turn of the century and that doesn’t include those renting from housing associations. This change was enabled by classic Thatcher-era legislation, the 1988 Housing Act, a deregulatory bonfire which introduced short-term tenancies, allowed landlords to charge whatever rent they liked, and got rid of any security of tenure for tenants, permitting them to be evicted with only two months’ notice. It presaged a huge change from the post-war social democratic settlement which was characterised by a mix of owner occupation and council housing. “The private landlord, increasingly associated with the rack-renting of slums was nearly eliminated”, wrote historian David Edgerton of that period.

But this brave new (old) world which saw the triumphant return of the private landlord and the phasing out of council housing had consequences: the number of private tenants who couldn’t afford the rent, and thus became reliant on financial assistance from the state, shot up. The amount spent on housing benefit increased from less than £2 billion to £24 billion in 2015/6 and now stands at over £30 billion a year. This is a public subsidy to landlords to make up for the fact that the level of rent they are charging is beyond the capacity of their tenants to pay. True Thatcherite Conservatives like to present the enormous housing benefit bill as indicative of out-of-control welfare spending that needs to be pruned back but, in fact, it is a direct result of their deliberate gutting of the post-war social order.

Speaking of which, the Cameron/Osborne administration did successfully, although temporarily, reduce the size of the housing benefit subsidy. Naturally, this was through eliminating tenants’ entitlement to it – through denying it to under-21 year olds and introducing a benefit cap – rather than reducing the need for it by cutting rents. Curiously though, a little publicised feature of the Conservatives’ 2016 Welfare Reform Act did indicate the financially sensible nature of the latter approach. ‘Social’ Landlords – i.e. local councils and housing associations – were required to reduce rents by 1% a year for four years. According to a House of Commons Research Briefing, “of all the measures implemented to date, the requirement on social landlords to reduce rents …. has achieved the highest level of saving.”

Innocently, you might think therefore that such a policy of rent capping should be applied to the private sector, where rents, the number of renters and the housing benefit subsidy have all mushroomed over the last 30 years. But such an idea doesn’t factor in how the Conservatives are the party of asset owners, whose interests – even if reliant on a huge state subsidy – must be protected at all costs. Rent control, if applied to the private sector, seems to cause an irrationally vituperative reaction among Conservatives. Friedrich Hayek, Margaret Thatcher’s favourite philosopher, described the policy as “deadly”. More recent adepts have condemned it as almost as devastating to a city as bombing it.

At the other end of the scale, the Conservatives have subsidised the deposits and mortgage repayments of first time home (usually flat) buyers through the Help to Buy scheme launched in 2013 which has so far cost £21 billion. Aside from artificially raising house prices, and thus benefiting housebuilders like Taylor Wimpey, the scheme has left recipients high and dry after the huge rise in interest rates, and thus mortgage interest payments, following the Truss debacle. But such is the Conservatives’ obsession with home ownership, seen as such an indelible part of Thatcher’s remodelling of British society, they are prepared to move heaven and earth –  including their own allegedly free market ideology – to massage the optics.

The Economy

The Conservatives did not, it should be said, instigate the huge state bail out of the banks that the British government felt it had no choice but to pay following the 2008 financial crisis. That was the prerogative of the last Labour government. But market fundamentalist Thatcherite ideology – convinced of the inherent wisdom of allowing those at the top of society maximum leeway – was certainly in attendance in spirit.  And the Sunak administration is pursuing the very sensible policy of removing the regulations that Cameron introduced as a sop to the prevailing zeitgeist that something had to be done to prevent 2008 from playing out again. I’m sure it’ll end well.

What can be laid at the door of Thatcher’s children, however, is subsequently using the exclusive money generating power of the state to massively augment the wealth of the richest in society. This was through the capital creating policy of Quantitative Easing (QE). Since 2008, QE has been deployed three times – immediately in response to the financial crisis (Labour), after the Brexit vote (Tory) and then again in the economic panic that ensued post-Covid (Tory) – totalling £895 billion in Britain alone.

QE works by creating a huge mass of money (so-called fiat money), that naturally seeks investment opportunities. The stock market is one of those investment outlets, although the booms engineered are decoupled from traditional market reasoning – the backing of companies because they are thought likely to be successful in the future. The resultant “explosion in billionaire wealth” – the cumulative wealth of the UK’s top 10 billionaires has increased by 281% since 2009 – therefore cannot be explained solely, or even mainly, by the natural workings of the market. During the pandemic for example, economic activity and growth plummeted but the number of UK billionaires rose by a fifth. This huge wealth – a billion is a thousand million – has been given a stupendous boost by positively Stalinist state intervention, carried out by, among others, devoted Thatcherites.

It should also be pointed out that Quantitative Easing directly contradicts one of the core tenets of original Thatcherism, that of monetarism. Developed by the American ‘free market’ economist, Milton Friedman, monetarism held that, to combat inflation, the supply of money should be strictly controlled. Doubtless the theory was honoured in the breach by ’80s Conservatives, but from the 2010s government policy around the world has simply laughed at it. Whether the inflation we are now experiencing has something to do with massive increases in the money supply – á la Friedman – is a moot point. In the last decade, notwithstanding regular doses of QE, the main threat was deflation, not inflation, suggesting that the capital boost of QE had stayed within the financial system. Possibly the last tranche of it – the creation of $834 million dollars an hour worldwide for 18 months – was so huge that some of it, in line with the official narrative, leaked out. Or maybe support for a largely mothballed ‘real’ economy – i.e. increasing the amount of money in circulation but reducing the amount of goods – produced the classic ingredients for inflation. Who knows?

Certainly now, we are seeing the opposite of QE, so-called Quantitative Tightening (QT), on the part of the world’s central banks, along with increases in interest rates. Whether this presages a new financial crisis, which may be unfolding as we speak, is an interesting question. But to even make a dent in the massive inequality caused by the economic intervention of adoring Thatcherites it would have to go on for decades.

Possibly Conservatives would retort that their post-Thatcher predilection for economic intervention does not just help those at the summit of the society but also the many millions at the bottom end. This is through working tax credits which ‘top up’ low or moderate incomes. Tax credits were introduced in America in the 1970s and expanded massively by Bill Clinton. Naturally, this country followed suit, and working tax credits became a core part of New Labour’s welfare philosophy (with emphasis on the working).

Their origin among parties theoretically antithetical to Thatcherism and Reaganism is deceptive, however. In reality, tax credits are another form of state subsidy to vested interests, enabling employers to pay low wages and institute more part-time or zero hours contracts with the assurance that the state will meet the shortfall. They are an essential part of our Thatcherite economic landscape. In 2015, the charity Citizens UK revealed that large retailers, such as Next and Tesco, were costing taxpayers £11 billion annually so that their staff could enjoy “a basic standard of living”. The situation has only become more acute in the interim.

Perfunctory, if high profile, attempts to wean on employers off tax credits, such as Osborne’s higher minimum wage, have not worked partly because they have been accompanied by a never-ending war on trade unions, the one force in society capable of making tax credits unnecessary through compelling employers to pay higher wages. Rishi Sunak’s anti-strike legislation, which permits employers to seek damages for the effect of strikes, will hit what’s left of trade union power, already hobbled, as we know, by archetypal Thatcherism. Tax credits in themselves are hostile to trade unions because if wages rise because of trade union influence, the tax credit level will fall as a result. It is no accident that a country such as Norway, which regards trade unions as social partners, not ‘the enemy within’, and which has a system of sectoral collective bargaining to determine wages, has not introduced tax credits. It doesn’t even have a minimum wage because strong trade unions mean it isn’t necessary. Norway, incidentally, also has a much higher standard of living.

It’s clear that the Thatcherites in Britain didn’t vanquish ‘socialism’ as they claimed they had. They merely changed the beneficiary group.

Covid and Corruption

There is something viscerally enraging about the Conservatives’ fiscal incontinence during the Covid pandemic.  It came after years of justifying taking money away from poor people – through policies like the benefit cap, sanctions and reducing the amount received by sickness claimants by £30 a week – on the grounds that it was only fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer.

But the interests of the taxpayer, allegedly so close to Conservative hearts, were strangely downgraded during the Covid lockdown when corruption and the raiding of the public purse by friendly businesses were rife. Virtually no prosecutions concerning the £5.8 million lost through fraud have taken place despite 30,000 allegations of fraud being reported to HMRC. The same is true of Rishi Sunak’s month-long Eat Out to Help Out scheme, which attracted an estimated £21 million in fraudulent claims from the hospitality sector. This dawdling contrasts with the alacrity that the Conservatives look upon alleged fraud in the benefits system. Permanently staffed hot-lines for the public to report fraud, regular tests for sick and disabled people, and the dispensing of thousands of sanctions to claimants for not upholding their “contract with the state”, have been features of this parallel universe in the UK for years.

In total £4.3 billion lost in fraud during Covid has been written off by the Treasury, prompting one minister in the House of the Lords to resign and accuse the government of “having little interest in the consequences of fraud to our society”.

But far from having little interest in it, Conservatives seem positively in favour of subverting free market ethics when it involves their friends. Michelle Mone, accused of secretly receiving some of the profits of a PPE firm that won large government contracts after she recommended it ministers, became a Conservative life peer in 2015. Altogether, nearly £1 billion in Covid contracts were awarded to 15 companies linked to donations to the Conservative party. It certainly pays to network.

The Conservatives’ alleged concern with getting value for money for the taxpayer is for the birds. The overriding aim is that 1) A narrow elite circle benefit and 2) The cash – otherwise known as other people’s money – finds its way through labyrinthine sub-contracting to the “good hands” of the private sector. Dido Harding, appointed as chair of “NHS Test and Trace” in 2020 is an example. Her lack of medical experience was no obstacle. Known as “an accomplished networker” according to The Times, she went to Oxford with David Cameron, married a future Conservative minister, and rose to become the chief executive of a mobile phone company and a Tory peer. Despite being given an astronomical £37 billion in funding, Test and Trace, reliant on sub-contracting by firms like Serco and consultants paid up to £6,000 a day, was a monumental failure, with more than 60% of those with Covid symptoms not being contacted. By contrast, the in-house teams of the doomed Public Health England and local authorities reached nearly 98% of their contacts. Go figure.

Ubi omnes errabis?

As alluded to earlier, this is not about simple hypocrisy. Arguably most political movements are hypocritical in that they don’t do what they say they are going to. The historical reputation of the Britain and America is that they compelled the rest of the world to accept the virtues of free trade, whereas in reality they were arch protectionists, and in Britain’s case, actually destroyed the industries of competitors through imperialism.

But Thatcherism started out with free market intentions. In its early days it preached the tenets of monetarism and controlling the money supply, sold off loss making industries to the private sector, declared war on trade unions as impediments to ‘free’ employment relations and hiked interest rates (causing a huge recession and remaining unmoved while thousands of businesses who couldn’t survive in the new unforgiving environment went to the wall). Only gradually – through for example contracting out essential public services and bailing out ‘too big to fail’ banks – did it morph into something else. Now the Thatcherites, notwithstanding their free market sheen, are presiding contentedly over a system of socialism for the rich.

Partly this is to do with misunderstanding what conservatism is. Friedrich Hayek, the major intellectual influence on the modern Conservative party, succeeded in reconnecting it to its classical liberal, or ‘old Whig’, philosophical inheritance. According to him, this conservative-liberalism, in contrast to idealistic socialism, had a “low” view of human nature. Hayek famously said that everything would turn out well if everyone behaved selfishly. But this selfishness was meant to exist within the law and the rules of the free market.

But nobody, besides intellectuals, believes in the sanctity of the free market. Many wealthy people will go where they can make even more money and the state, which rakes in and distributes hundreds of billions of pounds, offers that opportunity. The corruption around Covid illustrates the temptations and modern privatisation more broadly relies on the existence of a well-endowed state which can re-distribute taxpayer funds to the private sector. The Conservatives have, for years, been resolutely unforgiving about a ‘something for nothing’ attitude on the part of the multitude. Benefit sanctions, already at an all-time high, are being multiplied still further by Jeremy Hunt. But for the rich this sternness melts like ice left out in the sun. This is because the Conservatives are, and always were, a class-based party and exponents of class solidarity. When Tony Blair declared in 1999 that the class war was over, only one side was listening.

But the degeneration of Thatcherism has deeper causes than just the class bias of the Conservative party. Thatcher tapped into a profound conviction among Conservatives that if burdensome regulations and socialistic rates of taxation were lifted, the result would be prosperity for all and runaway economic growth. This certitude can be traced back to Adam Smith who thought the “natural effort of every individual to better his condition” was so powerful a principle it would carry society to “wealth and prosperity” and surmount ignorant obstacles placed in the way by “the folly of human laws”.

Coincidentally, the UK did – in common with the rest of the world – experience an economic boom in the mid-1980s. Naturally, Thatcherites took this as confirmation of the economic wisdom of their policies, which despite the temporary pain involved, had to be persevered with (actually the pain was probably connected to the ensuing boom, capitalism had always relied on a shake-down of capital value to lay the ground for subsequent growth). In fact, the economic boom of the mid-1980s became lodged in the public mind as the consequence of tough Thatcherite medicine and has endured despite the boom being revealed as a unique event.  Economic growth has declined in every decade since the 1980s, culminating in the present torpor. Real wages are not predicted to return to their 2008 level until 2026 and are experiencing a 3.9% annual decline, productivity is terrible when compared to before the Financial Crisis (0.5% compared to 2.3%), and business investment is anaemic.

But rather than face up to these issues, Thatcher’s children are umbilically attached to the idea that the only solution is more deregulation and tax reductions for the investors. These policies – known as supply-side reforms because they concentrate on those ‘supplying’ investment and employment (or not) – are religiously propagated by many conservatives despite the fact that they have already been implemented, with the results we see before us, for nigh on four decades (the corporation tax rate was 52% in 1981, it is now 19%). Liz Truss, for example, convinced herself that a bias towards redistribution over economic growth lay at the root of poor economic performance despite the evidence pointing in exactly the opposite direction.

One very obvious reason why these questions are not honestly examined, is that it would move into the crosshairs numerous Thatcherite shibboleths, most notably the idée fixe that underperforming economic growth can be palliated by reducing tax rates and irksome regulations on the wealthy. This ‘fix’ seems to be impervious to empirical evidence, though the Sunak administration is finally increasing corporation tax after decades of reductions, hoping no-one will notice that this contradicts a basic tenet of conservative economic philosophy.

As the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang pointed out a few years ago, the level of regulation is not a disincentive if there is a prospect of profit to be made. “…. strange as it may seem to most people without business experience,” he wrote in 2010  “businesspeople will get 299 permits … if there is enough money to be made at the end of the process. “In contrast, if there is little money to be made at the end of the process, even 29 permits may look too onerous.”

Why there is in the UK “little money to be made” – with the notable exception of finance and property – is not a question many are eager to ask, especially if it indicts their whole economic strategy which supposedly rests upon the inherent virtue of making money.

Herein lays the explanation as to why Thatcherism has degenerated into a system of socialism for the rich. It’s quite possible – indeed common – to remain ideologically blinkered in the face of evidence showing the hollowness of your ideology. It’s even possible to implement policies, such as corporate tax cuts, that do not have the beneficial effect you say they will. But it’s not possible to ignore the real world consequences of the failure of your economic philosophy. That is why free market Thatcherism has degraded into a swirl of subsidies, bail-outs, phoney privatisations, landlord patronage and plain corruption. They’ve been necessary because the free market hasn’t been able to prosper under its own devices and if you, as a party, represent the interests of asset-holders at the end of the day, they aren’t especially difficult choices to make. And in those circumstances, delving into the ready pile of “other people’s money” becomes irresistibly tempting.

But the remains – what lies at the root of economic failure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speculation and its Discontents

Ask an educated person for a definition of capitalism and you will probably get a recitation of how the desire to make money ensures unmet demand is met. This may lead to a gross state of inequality requiring governmental remedy – and even the creation of undreamt of wants – but the essential carrot of great wealth on the horizon means that someone, somewhere will provide for basic needs – albeit at a price not everyone can afford.

Here lies the system’s essential dynamism and why, whether you like it or not, it ‘delivers the goods’ as they say.

Given the vast array of products available to people with the means to buy them, that’s an understandable viewpoint.

However, as can be seen by the current staggering inflation affecting energy and food prices, it’s not an accurate one. Capital-ism – the investment of money in order to make more money – can in fact contradict the laws of supply and demand, creating perceived shortages where none actually exist.

It’s widely accepted that the huge rises in prices for oil, gas and food are behind the massive rises in inflation in western countries. Inflation, we are told, will reach 18% in the UK by early next year. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is seen as the catalyst for these increases driven by creating war-induced shortages of basic goods. And shortages, a basic principle of economics tell us, equal spiralling prices.

Or not, as the case may be. Despite wild jumps in wholesale prices, oil, for example, did not stop flowing. Citi, the same bank that predicts 18% inflation in Britain at the start of 2023, believes the price of oil will fall to $45 a barrel by the year’s end, not indicative of a crisis of supply. Ukraine’s imperilled status as the ‘breadbasket of the world’ prompted huge increases in the price of cereals and wheat, surging past historic highs in February and March. But now, as the Economist magazine notes, food prices are tumbling, despite the fact that, as far as anyone is aware, the war in Ukraine has not come to an end.  As it turns out, agricultural corporations saw “substantial gains” and “were not negatively affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.

So much for the ‘unbuckable’ laws of supply and demand.

The one commodity where there has been a genuine disruption of supply is natural gas, with gas flowing from Russia to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline reduced by 60%. However, the current ‘global’ price is 9 to 11 times “higher than usual” which, I would suggest, is not commensurate with cut backs in one country’s supply. Before the Ukraine war, the price of gas was already rising and, according to Shell, the influx of hedge funds and other speculators into the market was a major factor. “Prices are becoming less determined by news about supply and demand because of the influence of new financial players moving money in and out of the market,” the company was reported as saying.

These booming ‘world’ prices have caused – and are causing – real suffering to millions, if not billions, of people. Essentially the perception of scarcity, fuelled by trillions of dollars of speculative money, created artificial scarcity by inflating the price of basic commodities like food and fuel beyond the reach of ordinary people. Around 71 million more people have already been pushed into extreme poverty and the UN secretary-general has warned of an “unprecedented global hunger crisis”.

Winter in Britain is looking bleak beyond imagining with millions unable to pay soaring energy bills and thousands dying from the cold.

And this suffering is directly attributable, not just to Putin’s ‘weaponisation’ of gas, but also to the ‘wall of money’ at the top of society which has an unquenchable thirst to accumulate more wealth. The speculators – hedge funds, fund management firms, investment banks, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds – all exist for the unceasing purpose of making money out of money. According to American socialist magazine Jacobin:

As with all speculative bubbles, once cash poured in and pushed up prices, the resulting higher prices ‘confirmed’ the initial story, eliciting fresh capital sending prices even higher … Commodity exchange trade funds received $4.5 billion in a single week as retail investors ploughed their savings into the latest get-rich-quick craze. Institutional investors likewise poured money into the commodity markets, not because of any belief about fundamental supply and demand but to diversify their portfolios with and ‘inflation hedge’.

This is probably the first time in recent memory the ‘rich world’ has been seriously affected by speculation-fuelled surges in the prices of basic goods. But it’s not the first time it has happened to the majority world in this century. In both 2008 and 2010, there were “global food crises”, in which hundreds of millions of people in the Global South were propelled into extreme poverty by rising bread prices, precipitating riots and revolution in countries around the world. Yet the problem wasn’t actual scarcity. Unlike during the French Revolution when a poor harvest did precede the cresting of popular unrest, in 2008 and 2010 prices doubled despite more food being produced in that year than at any other time in history (55.45).

Perverse and unnecessary suffering like this is the consequence of a little appreciated aspect of the huge inequality bestriding the world. Inequality on this scale is not only unjust in that the billions of poor people in the developing and developed world don’t have the resources to live decent lives. Inequality on this scale generates baleful outcomes by virtue of the simple fact that immensely rich people have too much. The world’s largest fund manager, Black Rock, for example, has over $10 trillion under management. And that $10 trillion will be invested in profit-promising opportunities that, over time, will grow and grow in a never-ending process.

Fatal social problems like financial crises, the continued exploitation of fossil fuels, the undermining of democracy, the gutting of the public sector, and the recasting of housing as simply a means to amass wealth (to name a few) have their roots in this perpetual search for new sources of profit for this towering ‘wall of money’. Such activities aren’t merely “socially useless”, in the words of Adair Turner, the former chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority. They’re socially destructive.

Long ago, the economic historian, Karl Polanyi, singled out the “scarcity of Capital” as the factor which crippled “potentially rich countries from developing their natural wealth”. Now, after periodic economic crises smoothed away with bail-outs and capital-creating ‘Quantitative Easing’ schemes, we have the opposite problem. In the description of one economist, we have a glut of capital.

If, on the rare occasions that the chaos caused by commodity price speculation is squarely faced, the answer is invariably presented in terms of the imposition of World War Two-style price controls and the return of regulations that hem in the speculators. Just over 20 years ago the passing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in the US (signed into law by ‘New Democrat’ Bill Clinton) ended Roosevelt-era regulation in which speculation was confined to 20% of a given market.

But we are facing a very different world to the one that existed when these regulations were put into effect. According to one assessment, the volume of capital in the world tripled between 1990 and 2010, reaching $600 trillion. This figure was nearly ten times the value of global goods and services, ensuring that the vast majority of it inevitably went into some form of speculation, i.e. betting on an increase in the value of an asset, such as the global price of wheat.  And this was in 2012. It was predicted, then, that global capital would hit $900 trillion by 2020.

The pressure exerted by this mass of money was a pivotal reason for the dismantling of regulation towards the end of the last century – the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was famous for exempting derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps from regulation, which many believe created a direct path to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Theoretically, it should be possible to re-regulate; if the hurdle of political systems being dominated by the uber-rich can be overcome. However, where would these trillions of now redundant capital go to? It wouldn’t be invested in the expansion of physical production because the demand for ‘fixed capital investment’, as it’s known, is nowhere near strong enough. It also won’t just cease to exist because there is no (legal) purpose for it.

Re-regulation and the overthrow of the market fundamentalist dogma of the last forty years may be abundantly necessary but they won’t save us from what the capitalist system has become.

 

 

 

 

 

The Generosity of the Working Classes

Whenever workers are accused of being greedy for wanting their wages to keep up with inflation – as RMT members, BT workers and train drivers are now, in common with workers generally in the late ’70s – it always puts me in mind of two Austrian economists.

One is the über free-marketeer, and also Margaret Thatcher’s favourite practitioner of the ‘dismal science’, Friedrich Hayek. He was adamant that society would benefit, and become immeasurably wealthier, if everyone was motivated solely by profit. “In fact, by pursuing profit we are as altruistic as we can possibly be,” he said, “because we extend our concern beyond to people beyond our range of personal conception.”

Another Austrian, Karl Polanyi (technically Hungarian but he was born in Vienna and lived there for many years), noted that this admonition to behave as selfishly as possible in economic matters pointedly didn’t apply to workers. In fact if wage earners didn’t act in precisely the opposite way – with admirable restraint and concern for the common good – the whole profit maximising system would rapidly fall apart.

If, Polanyi noted in his most famous book The Great Transformation, what workers are selling – their labour – is just the same as any other commodity produced for sale, like sugar or bottles of vodka, they should seek the highest possible price for it. If, that is, they are motivated solely by maximising profit, which Hayek and his predecessor Ludwig Von Mises thought everyone should be. Polanyi elaborated:

Consistently followed up, this means the chief obligation of labor is to be almost continually on strike … The source of the incongruity and practice is, of course, that labor is not really a commodity and that if labor was withheld in order to ascertain its exact price (just as an increase in supply of all other commodities in similar circumstances) society would very soon dissolve for lack of sustenance.

Naturally workers would not be allowed to continually renegotiate the sale of their labour in this manner. This is where the neoliberal solicitude for freedom crumples like leaves on a bonfire. Margaret Thatcher famously used the power of the state to destroy the influence of organised labour the moment it ceased to be a compliant partner of employers and tried to protect the living standards of its members. And in response to the actions of the RMT and others, Liz Truss, the favourite to be next British Prime Minister, wants a legal requirement to maintain “minimum service levels” even when public sector workers have balloted for a strike. If enacted Truss’s promise would return Britain to the salad days of the liberal utopia (coincidentally the original title of The Great Transformation) before disputes between employers and employees were made civil matters and when workers could be – and were – jailed for breaking their employment contract.

Liberal Fascism

And this, shall we say, fickle relationship with freedom is by no means a new impulse on the part of conservative-liberals. In the 1920s, one of the original economic liberals, Ludwig Von Mises, thought the merit of Italian Fascism would “live on eternally in history” for having “saved European civilisation” by smashing, quite literally, the workers’ movement in Italy.

It is illuminating that wage earners – flesh and blood people with bills to pay and other people to look after – are the only element of the economy expected to exercise restraint in economic matters out of concern for the common welfare. Nobody in power really thinks for one moment profit should not be maximised by corporations. And despite the propaganda that in these enlightened times, corporations ‘do well by doing good’, it certainly is being unashamedly maximised. Both Shell and Centrica (British Gas) recently posted record profits notwithstanding predictions that energy bills will soon triple. According to research by the union Unite, profit margins for the UK’s FTSE 350 companies (big business in other words) were 73% higher in 2021 than they were before the pandemic.  Despite Sir Keir Starmer telling us that “When business profits, we all do”, the bedtime story that high profits produce economic growth and rising wages like parched earth blossoms after a cloudburst just won’t wash anymore. Are we supposed to ignore the experience of last three decades?

Not selfish enough

The conclusion that economic selfishness is in fact a virtue when practised by those legal entities called corporations is defended despite the fact that excessive profits are a more likely inflationary culprit than high wages (which in fact have been stagnating or falling for years). In the words of the father of market economics, Adam Smith, “Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

One could argue that workers in Britain – and elsewhere – far from being too selfish, aren’t being selfish enough. The RMT is demanding a pay rise of 7% which when inflation is at 9.1% is obviously a real terms pay cut. And here lies the crucial difference between wage earners and other elements of the economy, or ‘factors’ in production. When employers seek sky high profits or when landlords raise the rent by way above the rate of inflation, they do so because they can and because the practice is socially validated. When workers submit to whatever wage they can negotiate (usually whatever they are offered, even to get a trade union recognised is an immense struggle) they do so because they have to. Because, lacking independent means, they have to procure the means to survive for themselves and their families.

Historically, this unequal ‘deal’ been accepted, partly out of brute power, and partly because it promised benefits – to consumers, to workers receiving rising wages – that seemed to accrue from submission to the demands of capital. But what if, as in happening now in the West, the bounty stops flowing. How long are we going to continue to oppress ourselves?