Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Greek unemployment is over 11% and will almost certainly continue to drop. The UK's unemployment is about 9%, and has probably reached the bottom. Greece's S&P rating went from BBB to BB yesterday, thus crossing the threshold into junk bond territory. The UK's credit rating is the maximum AAA. The UK is not Greece.

What people need to realise is that debt can be willingly held by investors. In the case of Greece, it is not. In the case of the UK, it is at present. Would this change? Only if it becomes apparent that we can not service it - that is, if we can not pay the interest on it. Our tax revenues are likely to rise as the economy begins to grow again, and benefits are likely to fall. I know people get frightened by big numbers, but there is always a context. I don't know how you make this case convincingly to the public, but all the scaremongerers need to stop it. Mainly, I'm talking about the Tories, but Vince Cable this morning sounded no better.

That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't start to reduce our debt, but not for the reasons that are usually touted. Debt is a transfer of resources over time. With governments, this can be between generations. If debt is built up for investment, then the benefits of such investment will probably outweigh the costs of repaying it, so future generations are not made worse off. However, crisis management has a more immediate payoff and much less of one for people in 30 years time. It is not fair that the costs of that be paid by the future generations, nor that the government's ability to crisis manage should a similar thing happen again in the future be impeded by a shortage of cash.

2 comments:

Charles said...

Interested in an economists view on this - http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-95.html

Craig said...

I'll have a thorough read, but it seems to agree with my position, which is that this whole debate has moved on from common sense rebalancing to a rhetoric of our impeding doom.

Here's something else my supervisor was saying today. In 1991, when Maastrict was happening, there was an acceptable level of debt calculated for the UK. Because of higher interest rates back then, today's interest payments, as a percentage of GDP, are 40% of what they were back then. Basically means we could manage a debt ratio well over 100%.

I've been debating with myself on the merits of democracy in an election contested on matters of particular expertise rather than on philosophy. After all, would people be as healthy if medical treatments were decided by referendum? Anybody care to talk me down (without quoting Churchill)?