Economics

It’s official – the British government owes trillions

Another great article from the IEA, this time by Nick Silver:

Earlier this year I published a report estimating British government debt at £4.8 trillion. However, over the summer the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a paper which proves me wrong on two counts – firstly, I understated the true debt and secondly, rather than going bankrupt sometime in the future, the UK should probably already be calling in the receivers.

Taking account of the ONS figures, Mr Silver now reckons that “our gross national debt is about £6.5 trillion”

The ONS also calculate the country’s assets as approximately £3.5 trillion, if we include the banks’ balance sheets. We therefore have a hole of £3 trillion to be funded by future tax revenue. This is in addition to future government spending. To ensure the public finances are sustainable in the long term, the government will not only have to reduce the current budget deficit of 9% of GDP; it will also have to run a surplus to “pay off” the £3 trillion. And this assumes that the assets will also generate cash or could be sold off, both of which are pretty unlikely.

Looked at this way, the UK is effectively an enormous unfunded and effectively bankrupt pension scheme, with a large speculative holding in some banks and a sideline in running a small island state off the northern coast of France.

Slowly but surely, the message is getting out: The UK is Broke.

The question is, what is David Cameron going to do about it?

Economics

IMF figures underscore need for drastic spending cuts

Today’s Telegraph reports

The International Monetary Fund has warned that long-term fiscal reforms will be required among advanced economies as it projected the UK’s gross debt to gross domestic product would rise to 90.6pc in 2015.

According to Mark Littlewood at the IEA,

These statistics underscore the need to drastically cut government spending. Only through cutting spending and subsequently lowering the tax burden will growth be stimulated in the UK economy.

The IMF is right to point to the UK’s spending on health and pensions as areas of concern. However, when pensions liabilities are taken into account, UK national debt already stands at a staggering 333% of GDP; far worse than the 90.6% the IMF predicts for 2015. It is time for politicians to be frank and honest about our real debt levels.

The coalition government has made a start, but it must be bolder and more radical if it truly is to deal with this gargantuan task.

The 333% figure comes from an IEA report published in June, A Bankruptcy Foretold 2010: Post-Financial-Crisis Update, which uses standard accounting practices to estimate the true level of UK government debt.

Regular readers will remember the Cobden Centre article by Prof. Kevin Dowd, which suggests the figure may actually be as high as 530% of GDP — “Two different methodologies by reputable researchers, both painting a very bleak picture”.

Economics

The UK is Broke

Although few people yet realise it, the UK is bankrupt: the Government cannot pay its debts.

This might sound a little pessimistic. After all, the UK debt to GDP ratio is still under 70%, and the debt to GDP ratio for some other countries is much higher.

However, for peacetime the current UK debt to GDP ratio is high and rising fast. Furthermore, observers of the UK economy have been sounding warnings for some time: one major bond investor early in the year warned his clients that UK Government debt was a “must avoid” as it was “resting on a bed of nitroglycerine”.

Unfortunately, the Government’s official debt is not the real problem: the Government’s ‘official’ debt is only a small percentage of its true debt exposure. The official debt is merely the tip of a very large hidden iceberg.

The Government’s true debt is the present value of all the commitments it has entered into, on the expectation that these commitments will be paid for by future taxpayers. Some prominent examples are the commitments implied by the public sector pension system, the state pension system, the health system and PFI. The costs of these commitments are staggering.

One recent Institute of Economic Affairs study by Nick Silver put this figure at 333% of GDP. Another, by Christian Hagist and his colleagues at Freiburg University, put the figure at 530% of GDP. Two different methodologies by reputable researchers, both painting a very bleak picture. The latter study also carries out an international comparison – and, relative to other countries, the UK comes out as a basket case along with the US: the US is bankrupt too.

Let’s take the first figure. This means that a typical UK citizen will be expected to pay well over three times’ their annual income just to cover this debt. If we go with the larger figure, then he or she will be expected to pay well over five times their annual income.

With an average income of about £22,000 for per person, these figures suggest a future tax bill in the range between approximately £73,000 and almost £117,000 for each man, woman and child in the country.

Yet even these figures are over-optimistic, in so far as they refer only to the unfunded tax burden that has already been incurred, whereas the reality is that this burden has been rising rapidly before the current crisis, and is rising even more rapidly now. So we are looking at an obligation on the future taxpayer that is not only very large, but still rising sharply.

The problem is made worse still because of the way the tax burden will be distributed. For some older people – such as those in retirement – there isn’t much problem at all. They benefit from the government’s commitments, but are unlikely to have to pay much towards their cost. For young people, it is the other way round: they are expected to pay large amounts into the system and get little back in return; and the younger the person, the worse the deal.

So we have an average, per person, tax burden of £73,000 if we are feeling optimistic and nearly £117,000 if we are feeling pessimistic – but in either case possibly much higher, and certainly rising – that is distributed very unevenly across the population: younger people paying much more, and older people less, if anything at all.

One recent estimate suggested that a UK citizen born in 2011 will inherit, on birth, a debt of perhaps £200,000, and it could easily be much more.

It is simply inconceivable that debts on this scale will be paid off in full.

Nor should they. These were not debts that youngsters freely took on, but obligations incurred on their behalf in many cases before they were even born.

The uncomfortable moral question then naturally arises: at what point does the debt become so large that our future children will be born into a new form of slavery, entering the world shackled by the debts of their forbears?

This highlights the underlying moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy of the system. For years, politicians yielded to the temptation to increase spending commitments and put off the costs of those decisions into the future, when it would be someone else’s problem. The political system itself encouraged them to do so – handing out goodies is so much easier to sell politically than handing out pain. Even the voters themselves were complicit, because they voted in governments committed to ‘spend now, [someone else] pay later’ policies, instead of penalising governments for long-term fiscal irresponsibility. Most of those who will pay the burden did not yet have the vote, so they didn’t count. No-one took responsibility for the long-term.

In so doing, our political system created a huge intergenerational Ponzi scheme, passing the buck from one generation to the next, until the whole rotten system inevitably collapses under its accumulated weight.

The long-term, even medium-term, outlook is therefore deeply unpleasant. Taxes will rise, sharply, but these rises will not be enough, and will leave younger people with little incentive to work or to save. Benefits across the board will be cut, massively: the government will renege big-time on many of its commitments, breaking its health, pensions and other promises on a huge scale. The social and economic consequences don’t bear thinking about. And of course there is the very real danger that even these draconian measures will not be enough: that the government will lose all control of its finances and end up printing money to pay off its debts, so leading to hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Make no mistake about it: the country is bankrupt.

Economics

Cobden Centre Annual Lecture 2010 – honest money and the national debt

Last night, yours truly, along with a number of other Cobden Centre supporters and assorted free marketeers, listened to Toby Baxendale talk about a radical proposal to sort out the UK national debt. He talked about a good many other things, but the centrepiece of his talk was how, as part of a key reform, we could slash the debt burden and save future generations from the crippling expense of the current debt.

What interested me, beyond the core of Toby’s talk, was the reaction from the audience. A number of people I spoke to – their conversations are off-the-record so I will not name them – told me they were skeptical about Toby’s reasoning on the national debt point, although they accepted that, at face value, there may be a vital point they were missing. I must say that I am not entirely convinced myself but that may because I have not understood the point and need to do a bit more thinking and reading. In particular, there is a worry that the Cobden Centre might appear, unless we thrash these issues out clearly, to be pitching some sort of “magic bullet” solution. And I am sure that Toby does not regard there being anything magical about honest money.

One simple issue that arises from any plan to wipe out a lot of debt is the law. In debt restructurings, for example, one point that bankers have to deal with is the seniority of debt holders. The UK’s national debt is held by a variety of different people, foreign and domestic; it is held by a variety of institutions. Any plan to adjust debt, or cut it, has to take into account the kind of people who hold it and any contractural issues that may arise. It may sound nick-picky but it is the sort of detail that is actually very important in resolving debt issues at the corporate level, for example.

I was mightily impressed by the few words of Steven Baker in reference to his maiden speech on the issue in the House of Commons. It almost seems too good to be true that we have a sitting MP who actually understands, and wants to spread understanding of, these issues. (The fact that Steven has actually had a serious job as an engineer is also a refreshing change). For far too long, the free market position has suffered from a lack of articulate defenders in parliament (there have been honourable exceptions, such as the late Nicholas Budgen or Jock Bruce-Gardyne). Simply conveying the message that states make a mess of money is a key argument to make. It would be good for other MPs and commentators in the mainstream media to be more acquainted with the Austrian school. There are already signs that this might be stirring: consider this article on banking by Dominic Lawson, who seems to have inherited his father’s grasp of good economics.

Economics

More Posted to the ASI Blog

This blog thread has been very rewarding. There are over 70 useful contributions. Most say, “yes we know the government is debasing us, but as they need to do that to survive, and no one can explain it in simple terms to the people, there will not be the political will or the will of the people to change it.” Considering the fact that the majority of the economy (52%) is now the state, and that turkeys do not vote of Christmas, they reckon we will be stuck with the current system.

I do not believe that will be the case. In this report, the Bank for International Settlements lay out their predictions concerning the UK debt. By 2040, they are reckoning on a national debt being 500% of GDP. Even on the optimistic Treasury forecasts, it will be £1.5 trillion by the end of the next parliament which will still be 7% of GDP. This is the Elephant in the room.

Liam Halligan has picked up on this too. In his article he refers to a graph from the BIS report, which the Telegraph website fails to produce:

The only solution, as no political party yet is prepared to grasp the nettle and deal with both the deficit AND the national debt itself, will be to debase our money on such a scale that would make Gideon Gono, Mugabe’s Central Bank governor, very happy!

So I think this will happen sooner rather than later. What I am saying is that there will be a Sterling crisis, and a system wide default on the debt obligations of the nation. The current course is simply unsustainable.

This is when all who are interested in Honest Money should be ready with solutions that have already been worked out and debated with the political class.

A Note on the Morality of a Government Bond

A bond issued by the government is a promise to pay the purchaser a coupon and the capital back at a predetermined term(s) in the future. Thus the government, whose only source of revenue is its subjects can wilfully extract more of our wealth on an ongoing basis to pay for these obligations. Is this slavery? Would we shed a tear if slave owners did not get compensated upon abolition? I would not.  Monetising the debt is dishonest as slavery is dishonest.

However, I do accept that the majority of people buying fixed income from the state have no idea what they are getting involved with, and thus they should have their obligations met wherever possible. Following a Sterling crisis, we should advocate constitutional amendments to stop this practise recurring in the future.