Skip to main content

They are all 'cutting the deficit' now — but do they make any sense?

There is nothing more annoying than hearing politicians of all parties telling us 'we must cut the deficit'.  It is annoying because they never explain what they mean by it, let alone how they would do it.  It should come with a health warning, or some kind of caveat that tells you they are talking nonsense. There is no 'must' about cutting he deficit.  It is not in itself a 'must'. It is only a 'must' in the right economic context. Mr Osborne says he has cut the deficit by a third. Mr Cameron often repeats this. What they mean by cutting the deficit varies depending on what message they really want to get across.

Are they talking about the current account deficit, or are they talking about the underlying, or structural deficit? They don't tell you. They simply say 'deficit'. By doing so they give the impression that all kinds of deficit are equally problematic. They are not. You might think the deficit is 'the deficit'. Some politicians are fond of referring to household budgets for an analogy.  You can't go on spending beyond your means.  Well, no, you can't. But we often do. We often spend what we expect to pay later. We borrow. Now there are different kinds of borrowing.  For example, borrowing to pay of existing debts isn't 'good' borrowing. Borrowing to buy a car to use for work is probably, depending on the circumstances, an example of 'good' borrowing. Without the car you would have no income. So you might 'run a deficit' for a while, covered by borrowing. That kind of deficit isn't 'bad'.

We might regard the economy in the same way. The government might choose to run a deficit covered by borrowing in order to 'grow the economy'.

 In the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit).  Last year the Coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested (budget deficit was £67.8 bn).  So not all the deficit is 'bad'.

Let's look at this another way with another set of interesting statistics.  Let's look at debt as % of GDP.  In 1997 debt was 40% of GDP. At the start of the recession in 2007/8 debt had fallen to 36.4% of GDP. Yet this was despite increased government spending. Government spending increased enormously under Labour. The Tories are always telling us, so it must be right. So how was this achieved? The answer of course is by growth and increasing revenue.  Revenue can be key to cutting the deficit but politicians don't like going there because it is to do with taxes!

Let's also put it into another perspective. Debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher in the 1950s when according to Harold MacMillan, we had 'never had it so good'. Even as he said this, UK national debt was over 200% of GDP!  You might say, ah yes but that was because of the war. Indeed, no doubt it was, but the same argument can be applied now in relation to debt at 60% of GDP - 'ah yes , that is because of the financial crash'.  Indeed it is.

So, when we hear politicians talking about cutting deficits we need to be sure what deficit they are talking about, what they would do to cut it, and three whether what they propose makes any real sense. About that we can make no judgements because we have no idea what they would do to 'cut the deficit'. When they say 'we will cut the deficit' they are being disengenuous and frankly talking a load of bollocks.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,