The banks knew the crisis was coming last year and that they couldn’t trade dodgy mortgage securities and lend 40 times their core capital without coming a cropper. So, they held a gun to the government’s head: take our toxic assets or we blow the economy up. The government obliged with a £1.3 trillion bail-out.
But things weren’t going well at the turn of the year, with public anger at Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension creating pressure for real reform. So they took MPs out one by one and shot them -- or rather exposed their expenses fiddles to The Daily Telegraph, which amounted to the same thing. That drew a line under the campaign for banking reform, as public anger against Sir Fred and City plutocrats turned to public anger against flipping MPs and their duck islands.
But there was still the problem of how to hide the massive cost of getting the government to take on the bad debts of the banks. So they dusted down a few myths from the 1970s that every middle-aged newspaper reader would understand: profligate public spending. The bloated state.
I don’t write for the blogosphere so I’m not allowed to be a conspiracy theorist. But when you think of it, this is not all that far from what has actually happened in the year since Lehmans exploded. A crisis that was caused by the financial sector has turned into a crisis for the public sector. Suddenly, all we talk about is cuts.
The infuriating thing is that the Tories are right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, there will have to be cuts. The economic recovery has been bought at a fabulous cost, and this will have to be repaid. Right now, we are paying for it by printing money to buy government debt, which is unsustainable.
However, the fiscal crisis is not the fault of over-generous spending on public services. The record peacetime budget deficit with which we find ourselves is almost entirely the cost of the banking bail-out plus the cost of the recession that followed it.
But pretty soon all we’ll hear about is NHS waste, feckless layabouts on benefits and too many bureaucrats living off the public purse. Actually, there are too many bureaucrats living off the public and many of them are earning salaries which should never have been permitted in the public sector. But to be clear: they didn’t cause this crisis. It was excessive lending and spending by Britain’s financial sector that caused the financial implosion.
That is why Britain has the biggest budget deficit in the G20 and why we are still in recession when other European countries are out of it. There is evidence that countries with higher state spending, such as Germany and France, were better able to cope with the economic shock because they weren’t so dependent on a financial services sector. But the whole country seems spontaneously to be talking the language of public sector infamy.
Even Vince Cable, the astute and fair-minded finance spokesman of the Liberal Democrats, has been talking almost exclusively recently about cuts. He believes that spending needs to reduce by £80-£100 billion and will require a freeze on public sector pay, axing public sector pension rights and ditching things such as Trident and identity cards. Yes, some cuts are good. It was always senseless to spend tens of billions on a weapons system designed to destroy Russian cities when we no longer have a beef with them. And the identity cards scheme, like the NHS computer system, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Cable has a point too about public sector pensions and pay. Is it fair to ask workers in the private sector, who are losing their own final salary pensions, to pay higher taxes for unfunded public sector pensions? But this only shows how iniquitous and divisive the focus on cuts becomes.
How convenient it is that workers are fighting with workers about who should foot the costs of the financial disaster while the people who really caused it all, the financial plutocrats, are running off with ever-greater bonuses and multi-million pound remuneration deals.
Now, I am sometimes taken to task for promoting the politics of envy when I talk like this. Am I some old-fashioned Marxist who thinks everyone should be earning the same? Don’t I realise that the wealthy contribute disproportionately to tax revenue, and if we frighten them all away, we will have to cut public services even more?
Well, I’ve long since ceased trying to give myself a political label, but I have no qualms about calling for higher taxation for the very rich, and not just because multi-million pound salaries for bankers are an obscenity when they are subsidised by our taxes. This is a grossly unequal society, and the benefits of economic growth have gone disproportionately towards the very wealthy over the last two decades. All economists accept that salaries have stagnated while profits have increased their share of national income.
One of the reasons for the vast increase in UK private borrowing -- £1.5 trillion -- was families trying to maintain living standards. As Keynes pointed out, this can only lead to disaster. The wealthy don’t spend their money, they buy assets with it -- such as houses, which inflate in value, causing bubbles.
Meanwhile, demand in the economy dwindles, forcing firms to cut prices or go out of business. The debt bubble that has exploded was in large measure a result of too few people getting their hands on too much national income.
So, we should end the tax breaks and tax evasions which have allowed private equity barons to pay less tax than their cleaners. Which allow people -- MPs included -- to pocket huge untaxed gains on property sales. Which have led to the loss of £25bn in tax revenue to British dependency tax havens like the Cayman Islands, the cash-strapped governments of which -- incredibly -- we may now also have to bail out with taxpayers’ money. As the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Adair Turner, argued, we should be looking for ways of properly taxing financial services which have been getting too large a share of national wealth.
That was what Roosevelt did in America, and no-one called him a Marxist. Yes, public spending must be cut; but when it comes to cuts, you should always start at the top.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article