Socialism not Bankers to Blame for Public Sector Cuts

Follow @HortonEddison

Tweet

Today has seen tens of thousands of Britain's vast army of 6,000,000 public sector workers out on strike. The Prime Minister's own press secretary has been forced to man the immigration desk at Heathrow Airport. Millions of school children have lost a day of education, as well as elective surgeries cancelled and disruption across the country. Annoying for the UK, certainly, but for the rest of the world these are also worrying times, with more than a few echoes of the  economic situation of the inter-war years. In this article, we debunk the myth that it is 'the bankers' to blame for the mess we're in by making an assessment of why 'developed' economies (including our own) have come to owe so much money in the first instance.


In the 1930s the near collapse of capitalism was brought about by a series of defaults in an international debt triangle which ultimately forced the great depression and a second war in Europe. Indeed, right now in 2011 a an economic pyramid scheme which is at least superficially similar to that which was at fault in the '30s can be seen at play around the US/IMF/China triumvirate. Similar pillars of cyclical debt current underpins the EU experiment. In this article, we explore how modern socialist state economics are to blame for this unholy trinity and how such economic thinking has once again brought the international system to the brink of collapse.



For many on the left, the theoritical models of JM Keynes provide the genealogy of their present-day economic policies. 
Indeed, Keynesianism became the prevalent economic theory throughout much of the middle part of the last century. It is based on the essential pre-requisite that economic growth slows when the demand for production stagnates as a result of unemployment. Keynesianism suggests that the stagnation effects of unemployment can be overcome by creating the economic circumstances under which it is possible to increase the demand for products once more. The key concept to Keynsianism is that a short-term government funded stimulus which creates direct state employment, paid for with money borrowed from the markets or other nations, re-establishes the ability for the citizenry to purchase goods and services en-masse. This thus increases the need for products - ergo manufacturing - which in-term creates employment once more in the private sector. Keynsianism was not designed as a long term status-quo and was not designed to be a permanent life support system for economies, rather a short-term economic defibrillation. Indeed, the success of Keynesian investment depends on short-termism.

'Spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it'

Consequently, Keynesianism was employed with some success throughout the middle part of the 20th Century, including assisting the revival of most major economies before, during and after WW2. Therefore, it is not difficult to see why Keynesianism has attracted fans, particularly from the left where it seems to fit nicely with the ideological requirement for high public spending on generous public services. The UK Labour party’s economic policies are understandably based heavily in an interpretation of Keynesianism. Indeed, Gordon Brown's pledge as chancellor to bring about an “end to boom and bust” echoed strongly Keynes’ aims ‘to stabilize economic output during the cycle’. 


However, there are enormous problems with the modern centre-left's faith in Keynes' economic theories, as the ongoing failure of the so-called PIGS countries show us. Over the last 30 years, the governments of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain have been dominated by the centre-left. Their economic policy has, like the UK's, been driven by bastardisations of Keynesian theory, borrowing heavily in order to spend on public services (read public sector workers). All have consequently spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it. 


How then has Keynesianism failed so catastrophically in the PIGS and brought Britain and the US to the maximum of their credit limits?

The first part of the answer lays partly as discussed in the fact that Keynes only ever meant high public borrowing/spending as a short term solution, not as the basis of long term economic policy.  Indeed, what the current Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls, and his party leader Ed Miliband, both fail to understand is that it is not that the current coalition government is ‘cutting too far, too fast’ but that the previous Labour government was spending too much for too long. Labour's current  policy is entirely bi-polar; acknowledging the need to cut the deficit at the same time as advocating high levels of spending on public services. 


The second part of the answer is absolutely the key to understanding why the left can never be trusted with the economy again. It is more nuanced, but also more important. It concerns what public borrowing is actually spent on.  
In Keynes' time, an economic stimulous would buy short-term project specific blue collar workers; navvies, factory workers and builders. In the 21st century these manual trades have largely disappeared to be replaced by police officers, community outreach workers and NHS administrators who are employed on permanent contracts with pension schemes. Jobs for life. This is a change which partly reflects the evolving nature of our increasingly service based economy, but it also allows centre-left governments to claim increased public sector 'investment'. Employing one extra police officer for example, removes one person from the jobless total, adds one person to the number of police on the street, provides a basis for 'investment' in the police force. A very tempting proposition for any democratic government. In the 21st Century this is the fundamental problem with Keynesianism, and it is one that all ‘advanced’ economies (USA, PIGS, GB etc) suffer from. Here's why:


"The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. The difference is the question of permanence"


In the middle-part of the 20th Century, working for the government meant building Autobahns in '30s Germany, manufacturing munitions in '40s America or NHS hospitals and social housing in '50s Britain. In the 21st Century, well educated citizens used to a higher standards of living simply do not wish to be employed in menial work. Instead, increasingly voter conscious centre-left parties throughout the West have sought to apply Keynesianism to jobs more conducive to electoral success, but less fitted to Keynesian stimulous.The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. This difference is the question of permanence. Put simply, it is possible to hire and fire blue collar workers much more flexibly; when a motorway is finished, a war won or a hospital built the dependant workers can be, and are, laid off. 


However, white collar workers are of a different nature and have different expectations. Historically, office jobs form part of a career structure which assumes a level of permanence and confers a much more secure tenure as well as other benefits such as generous pensions and access to union and or legal representation which means that they are very difficult to fire an they very rarely wish to leave of their own accord.
Consequently, the centre-left’s fondness for creating jobs out of thin air has brought electoral prosperity for the left by means of supplying the unions with many thousands of members as well as simultaneoulsy cutting the jobless statistics and increasing 'investment' in public services. But it is a policy which has saddled the country with literally millions of extra hungry mouths to feed, in many cases from 18 until the grave.


Whenever you hear Labour talking about 'creating jobs' or 'investing in public services' what they actually mean is 'investing in votes' and 'creating a legacy of debt'. Next time you feel sympathy with public sector workers on strike, remember that your children's children will be repaying the debt accrued to pay today's public sector pensions. Instead of blaming those attempting to reign in the deficit, it's time we blamed those who created it.


Follow me on Twitter: @HortonEddison

UK National Debt Clock - DebtBombshell

Here are some powerful facts:

• Portugal: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 30 years (100 %)

• Ireland: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 18 years (55 %)

• Greece: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 22 years (73 %)

• Spain: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 21 years (70 %)

Tweet

Follow @HortonEddison

The real reason we're in debt is electoral fraud

We've all been there; in a doctor's waiting room or on a train listening to some indiscreet individual talking about work. Before they even opened their mouth you already had them clocked as a 'boutique leftist'; they give money to Palestine, they smell vaguely of the humus and yogurt veggie friendly meal they ate for breakfast and even their choice of train coffee is 'fair trade'. They are talking work, or more accurately, they are talking 'health' because these people, despite having absolutely no clinical or other professional qualifications, work for the largest employer in the country - and the 3rd largest in the world - the NHS. 


Let's get a few things straight right from the start. I am not against the idea of a National Health Service and I do believe that  its foundation in 1948 was the greatest achievement of any Labour government before or since. Indeed, soldiers returning home from the second world war (and their families) deserved to be provided with a health service fit for those that would never come back, as their fathers had been denied in 1918. However, the NHS of 1948, as compared with the NHS of today, is not recognisable as the same animal for many reasons; the original NHS was founded as part of a walfare state in order to provide health care for the masses, not as a means of employment for the masses. It is this distinction which Labour deliberately blurred during their tenure in government, and that the other parties did not pick up on, until now.


I believe that this article is the first document of any kind to make the seminal distinction between the NHS's role in the state as a health provider and not as an employer; the two had become deliberately and indelibly interconnected under the last Labour administration in order to buy votes as well as claiming 'investment' in the health service. This is an important moment because, if it allows even one other person to recognise the simple truth, then we have taken one step closer towards the last days of the Labour party as we know it. Moreover, this is further evidence, if any were needed, that we have been deliberately brought to the brink of bankruptcy by Blair, Brown and Balls et al.


In 13 years of Labour government, their trump card at PMQs or moments of electoral accountability was always the 'I' word - 'Investment'. Indeed, Labour's own website declares: 'Since being elected in 1997, the Labour Government has changed Britain ... through investment in schools, hospitals and other public services'. 
It is this kind of 'investment' which saw an increase of 304,000 NHS personnel (28.5%) in the decade 2000 - 2010. Proponents of this policy would argue that this level of 'investment' is a good thing, that patient outcomes have improved and that the Labour government had our best interests at heart. However these people are probably not aware that of those 304,000 only 55% had any clinical qualifications. In short, the rest were not doctors or nurses, or indeed any kind of medically trained front-line staff qualified to look after you or I. When Keynes talked of investment, he meant building things - a short term injection of government capital to build a road or school - not a long-term overhead like a public sector employee and pension and thus new employees of the state should never be called an 'investment', more a 'semi-permanent overhead'.


If the same colossal rate of growth had been allowed to persist for the ten decades following 2010 (i.e. 28.5% per decade), then the NHS would have employed over 50% of the working population of GB inside the century. Clearly then, the expansion of the NHS by the last government was for socialist political reasons, and not necessarily for reasons of health or the public interest. Further, the expansion was entirely unsustainable and would have eventually become all consuming had it not been arrested by the coalition. In fact, between 1997 and 2010, a shameless and deliberate abuse of the NHS's payroll as a party political tool was conducted and paid for with our economy; a system engineered in order to buy the votes of the liberal middle class managers (Mondeo man) by employing them directly, rather than imploring them indirectly, to vote Labour.


Further, in areas of generally low employment, unnaturally high NHS recruitment provided an opportunity to reduce the jobless total and thus engender an illusion of economic progress, thereby ensuring the Labour vote in these areas also. This planning pattern was not limited to the NHS, rather it was widespread all across the Public Sector. 


The Brown/Blair years presided over a mass expansion of the Public Sector which meant that by 2010, it employed well over 6,000,000 persons (25% of all Britons with a job - yep, only 24million of us do; not kidding). The map below shows the expansion of the private sector (left) versus the expansion of the public sector (right) during just 8 of the 13 years of Labour rule between 1998 and 2006.

The left will argue that there is nothing wrong with government creating jobs, after all, the wages of such jobs help fund the private sector; they spend money in the shops which keeps the high street alive and have mortgages which keep the financial services sector ticking over. In short, these people are becoming the back-bone of Britain, no longer Mondeo Man, but Public Sector Pete. Still with a company car and one holiday a year, but now paid for entirely by the public purse. Well, there are, in fact many problems with the economics of this which I may go into in greater depth in future blogs, but primarily it is that the private sector should fund the public sector, it is economic madness to suggest that it should be the other way around. Moreover, it is the political ramifications of spending public money (public debt actually) on votes, which simply must be acknowledged and investigated by the highest courts in the land. 

Finally, if a job has to be 'created' by government, then it isn't a real job. You can not 'create' a job; the need for an employee either arises organically or it simply does not exist. 

Follow my Twitter feed here #HortonEddison