Sunday, 10 February 2013

Events? Well, maybe....


As former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously never said (or perhaps he did – who can know, now?), the greatest danger a politician faces is ‘Events, dear boy, events’. 

Central bankers sometimes adopt a similar approach, and in just six months following the Great Crash of October 2008, the Bank of England dropped UK interest rates six times in response to 'events' happening in the world at large and the UK in particular. No-one questioned whether or not it was necessary, and perhaps it was.

Yet, in the 103 years (yes, one hundred and three YEARS) between April 1719 and May 1822, the UK steadfastly refused to budge on base rate, which stayed rock solid at 5%. Of course (you might say) there wasn’t so much mayhem in the world economy, or indeed in the UK economy, during those halcyon days, surely?

Er, actually, yes.

Whilst the Bank of England stayed true to 5% for 103 years, Britain experienced a long list of exciting ‘events’, including:

28th September 1720 : Bursting of the South Sea Bubble
23rd October 1739 : Start of the War of Jenkins’ Ear
16th April 1746 : Battle of Culloden
14th September 1752 : Adoption of the Gregorian Calendar
18th September 1759 : French surrender of Quebec to the British
10th February 1763 : Treaty of Paris, ending the Seven Years War
16th August 1765 : Acquisition of Bengal by the East India Company
29th April 1770 : Captain Cook landing in Australia
16th December 1773 : Boston Tea Party
4th July 1776 : American Declaration of Independence (from us)
9th October 1779 : First Luddite riots
28th February 1784 : Wesley breaking from the Church of England
28th April 1789 : Mutiny on the Bounty
14th July 1789 : Storming of the Bastille
1st February 1793 : Beginning of the Napoleonic Wars
22nd February 1797 : The last invasion of mainland Britain
26th February 1797 : Bank of England becoming insolvent
9th January 1799 : William Pitt’s introduction of income tax
15th May 1800 : George III’s survival 2 assassination attempts
21st October 1805 : Battle of Trafalgar
25th March 1807 : Abolition of the slave trade across the British empire
11th May 1812 : Assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval
16th June 1812 : American declaration of war on Britain
18th June 1815 : Battle of Waterloo
6th February 1819 : Founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles
16th August 1819 : The Peterloo Massacre

There seems a particular irony in 26th February 1797 not having any effect on the base rate.

One wonders what the Bank's MPC would have made of those 'events', and just how much Quantitative Easing the populace might have enjoyed had they been in charge of the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street in the 18th century. 

Or perhaps we really were made of sterner stuff then.

Sunday, 13 May 2012

Death or Glory?



I am no politician, so forgive my innocence. Since when were growth and austerity mutually exclusive?

Austerity is not merely reduced consumption – austerity is reduced waste. Growth is not merely increased production – growth is increased productivity.

Just as terminal starvation is not a rational response to obesity, terminal recession is not a rational response to economic recklessness. Growth and austerity go hand-in-hand in any common-sense strategy for returning from the brink of economic catastrophe.

The rational response to obesity comprises (a) altered food intake and (b) altered effort. Both are best altered in volume and nature, to reduce waste (unwanted calories) and increase productivity (beneficial effects of exercise).

By the same token, the rational response to economic recklessness ought to comprise (a) altered consumption and (b) altered production. This would reduce waste (unwanted inflation) and increase productivity (rate and quality of output), as long as both are altered sensibly in volume and nature.

Neither Government nor Opposition are right on this. Austerity doesn’t need to mean everyone reduced to penury, and growth doesn’t need to mean Government spending as if it would never have to pay for it.

Real growth comes from smart behaviour.

Spending needs to be reduced and redirected. Spend less on universal benefits, and direct what is spent toward only the needy. Spend less on big-ticket national transport projects, and direct what is spent toward high-return local transport improvements.

At the same time, output needs to be increased and more cleverly generated. Everything that a doctor or a teacher or a politician does that can be done by a computer, should be done by a computer. Everything the private sector runs that produces a negative impact on the public good (such as railways), should be returned to the public sector.

After all, the role of public money is to subsidise the private sector only where there is a market failure. 

The pattern of our spending goes up and down over time. It changes with age, with lifestyle, with opportunity. This variation is normal, and applies just as much to countries as to individuals. The key to recovery – and to avoiding boom-and-bust cycles in the first place – lies in spotting those variations which are structurally unusual, and moving swiftly to get us back on track. We rely upon our politicians for that - and they let us down.

Sir Peter Kemp once said “Policy is judged by the process, not the outcome”. It's time that sentiment was put aside, and the outcome took centre stage.

Saturday, 12 May 2012

That which does not kill me makes me stronger


If one bans something, then it must stop. If it does not, for example because some people want it to keep happening, then costs for the provider of the banned substance or activity will rise to include the cost of avoiding the ban. The provider wants to maintain margins, so the price to the consumer will rise as the cost rises.

That isn’t all. Being a provider of something which is banned carries risk. To reflect the additional risk of possible consequences to the provider of a banned substance or activity, the price will rise more than the cost rises – and the greater the risk, the higher the margin to reflect it.

This “bad will” premium – the opposite of the good will that makes legal businesses attractive – makes the banned practice more lucrative for providers, not less. Unless the ban reduces the number of users or the amount of the banned substance or activity, then providers will become richer and more able to afford ways to avoid the ban and to promote their (banned) product.

Thus, unless that which is banned can be stopped altogether, bans act as promotion not prevention. Nietzsche was right – “What does not kill me makes me stronger”. Drug “tzars” should take note.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Payback time?

Spotted the huge flaw in the Greek bailout deal, yet?

No, it’s not the assumption that 130 billion euros will do the trick. It’s not the assumption of GDP growth sufficient to bring debt-to-GDP down from 160% to 120% by 2020. And it’s not the assumption that the Greek people and all the other the Eurozone countries will sign up to the deal. It’s not even the assumption that Greek bondholders will take a 70% haircut.

Let’s go back to that debt-to-GDP thing.

The Greek economy, having fallen 7% in 2011, turns on a sixpence (or a dime to US readers) and manages to get back into positive territory by 2014 – which is a condition of the bailout.

“Ability to pay” is (rightly) a condition of any loan, and in this case a correlation is assume between the size of the Greek economy, the direction it’s taking (i.e. growth or recession) and the generation of enough cash to repay the interest and pay off the capital at a given rate.

Well, no-one’s actually said anything about repayment of capital yet (or indeed of interest, if you think about it. The only stipulation seems to be - aside from years of “austerity” for the Greek people - that Greek GDP rises far enough to make the debt seem less big).

That’s a little like saying “Your credit card bills are massive – I’ll only lend you enough to keep spending if you get a job with a salary that covers 83% of your debts, instead of the current 62.5%.

"Don't worry about paying the loan back. Don't worry how we might feel if you come back to borrow more (although you might guess at the interest we’ll charge). Just earn more money and we’ll feel good about things".

And as if that isn’t complacent enough, here’s the big flaw.

Two things need to happen simultaneously – Greek GDP needs to rise inexorably (and against every expectation) for years, AND the Greek Government needs to collect more tax each year than it has ever done before, in order to (a) run the country and (b) pay off the interest - and maybe some capital? - from its debts.

Tax collection in Greece is not what you might call comprehensive. Or thorough. Or even effective. Which means that Greek GDP can go through the roof and it won’t make the slightest difference to the ability of the Greek Government to repay its debts (unless you count that as generating the wherewithal to borrow more money, which isn’t really what we’re after here, although that's what the deal offers).

In short, debt-to-GDP is a waste of time as a measure of Greek ability to repay debt. The key in this deal is debt-to-tax take. Unless that starts to look as though it will get some serious attention, we’ll be back here in two years’ time, even if everything else goes swimmingly.

The markets seem quietly accepting of the bailout, for now. Yet, the Greek people have a very long, very hard road ahead.The really crunchy question is not whether or not the markets like the deal - it's whether or not the Greek people will let it happen.

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Staring into the abyss - the jobless economy?


An anonymous businessman in Davos in charge of a firm with several hundred thousand staff around the world, was quoted on the BBC News website on 28th January 2012: "We live in a world where wealth creation is uncoupled from job creation".

Those words are chilling. There are 200 million unemployed people around the world. Almost 40% of them – 75 million – are between 16 and 24, and every year another 40 million young people around the globe enter the workforce.

There are lots of reasons why this is bad. It is criminal to waste such a huge and valuable resource. It is criminal to continue delivering education and skills that are plainly irrelevant. Most of all, though, it is criminal to sentence the young people who represent the future of this planet to a lifetime of hopelessness and disappointment.

This is not just some blip on the long road to full employment or a small group of factory workers being displaced by automation, and it is not, to quote a well-worn phrase, “a car crash happening in slow motion”. What we are witnessing is the breakneck speed at which a fundamental shift can occur in the nature of work.

The pace of that change has produced an immense increase in global output over the past twenty years, yet because it is founded on increasing productivity in the private sector, job creation has not kept up with population growth.

In a period shorter than a human lifetime, tens of millions of potential job opportunities have gone from the global production chain, and the jobs that remain are changed beyond all expectation – hence, growing unemployment. And growing discontent.

Who can blame young people? In the race up the value chain it is always those at the lower end of skills and experience who are at risk. It wasn’t the blacksmiths who went broke in the shift from horses to cars - it was the people who collected horse dung from the streets whose talents were not transferable to the future.

We are seeing economies develop where job numbers are reducing – literally – without any negative effect on output, and with the private sector continuing to improve performance using fewer people on the headcount every year.

This is not an event. It is not a cycle. It is a trend. Either the private sector hires more people and pays them less, thus maintaining growth at the expense of individual wages, yet at least creating more jobs. Or, the public sector employs more people, which (as public sector productivity is low and declining) will not help output, yet would at least create employment.

Neither of those is going to happen in a hurry. Private sector workers would swoon at having their wages possibly halved, and the public sector doesn’t have any money.

It’s time for a rethink on what constitutes employment. It’s no use hoping for the upturn to come – things have changed. Unemployment figures won’t go up and down by much any more. Full employment won’t be back any time soon, or at all.

When “wealth creation is uncoupled from job creation”, we’re not just talking about a jobless recovery. For young people, we’re talking about a jobless economy.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

East London – Europe’s emerging economy?


Today the world’s top 600 cities[1] look like this:
        1.5 billion people
        $30 trillion in GDP (50% of the world’s GDP)
        485 million households with average per capita GDP of $20,000

In 2025 the world’s top 600 cities will look like this:
        2 billion people
        $64 trillion in GDP (60% of the worlds GDP in 2025)
        735 million households with average per capita GDP of $32,000

Where does London fit in to this scenario? GLA Economics’ nineteenth London forecast suggests that:

        London’s Gross Value Added (GVA) growth rate should be 1.4% in 2011. Growth should increase to 2.0% in 2012 and 2.4% in 2013.
        London is likely to see a modest rise in employment in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
        London household income and spending will both increase over the forecast period.

That rate of performance will keep London in the “City 600” for 2025. However, like all averages, the forecast hides some inconsistency. London is more unequal than any other region of England, and the MID (Multiple Index of Deprivation) shows concentrations of disadvantage in London's East & South, especially for employment, income and education[2].

London’s stark divide lets the richest 10% of households account for 40% of all income and two-thirds of all financial wealth, whilst the bottom 50% effectively account for none of the financial wealth in the capital.

Increasing unemployment, worse adult ill-health, worse educational attainment and two of the ten worst areas in the UK for child poverty are indications that, amidst the wealth of the capital, east London is missing out. The reason, quite simply, is scale.

London is (just about) small enough geographically to be a city. Economically though, it is big enough to be a country. London’s economy is bigger than Switzerland or Saudi Arabia, and almost twice as big as Venezuela. And just as with any country, within the city boundaries huge economic disparities apply. In fact, there is no “London economy” – just a cluster of local economies. Some are clearly well-developed whilst others have more in common with emerging markets.

East London as an emerging market?

The area from the City of London to the M25 is no ordinary “deprived area”. Benefiting from a 30-year UK Government commitment to regeneration, east London has had tens of billions of pounds of public money since the early 1980s. Recent years alone have seen £9bn of public spending on the capital’s first Olympic and Paralympic Games for two generations, and several billions of private sector investment to create Europe’s biggest shopping mall, the world’s most successful music venue, London’s International Convention centre and Europe’s fastest-growing city-centre international airport. And that’s not counting the world’s two leading financial centres in the City and Canary Wharf.

And all this spending has paid off, too. In the ten years to 2000, east London generated 1 in 8 of London’s new jobs. Between 2000 to 2008 job growth ratcheted upwards, and the area created 1 in every 4 of London’s new jobs –  52,000 jobs compared with 11,000 in Birmingham, 16,000 in Edinburgh, 33,000 in Leeds and 24,000 in Manchester. And it’s not over – by 2030, London could benefit from 180,000 new jobs and £21.4bn of additional GVA per year, just by following through on planned investments in east London[3].

Great potential – so what’s the problem?

The problem is market failure. In economic regeneration, market failure will normally occur in one of two ways – either the economic development doesn’t happen at all (as with the Royal Docks, prime riverside land lying undeveloped for 30 years despite unprecedented growth in the UK economy), or it is patchy (for example, the benefits of the City and Canary Wharf have spread neither widely nor deeply into the surrounding areas).

Both effects are present in east London, and that dual market failure – uneven underdevelopment – has left east London performing below the London economic average for decades, in a pattern that uncannily matches the economic shape of an emerging economy.

The characteristics of emerging economies[4]

Emerging  economies have several common features – and problems. Relatively low standards of living and low levels of productivity. Low levels of income and educational attainment. Inadequate housing and poor health. Low life and work expectancies. High levels of population growth and unemployment. Imperfect markets and a dependence and vulnerability in external relations.

East London has low income levels, as we’ve seen from earlier figures. It also has low productivity, partly due to the preponderance of public sector jobs in the area (and UK public sector productivity has been declining steadily for ten years). It has a young and rapidly growing population, yet low levels of educational attainment. It has insufficient housing and widespread poor health. It has an uneven (and thus “imperfect”) local economy and a huge dependence upon its “external relations” with the rest of London. And, it has unemployment levels as high as 14% in some boroughs.

Underlying all this is perhaps the most important, and least considered, similarity between east London and the BRICs or CIVETs we hear so much about – an emerging economy is one caught between tradition and transition.

Irresistible force and immovable object

In the past, east London comprised communities of tradition. Small, tight, close-knit groups of people, who stayed around – and together – a long time. They provided an identity and a support structure unequalled elsewhere. East London was the Heart of Empire, the engine room, the clearing house, where the whole, burgeoning world could be glimpsed in a single stroll along the docks. Everything the empire bought, sold, produced or consumed passed through east London, and it felt like it would last forever.

And now, the stage is taken by a rainbow of entrepreneurs from all over the world – communities in transition. From manufacturing to services. From families of four to single people or families of ten. From long-term employment to self-employment or job-hopping or portfolio careers. From manual work to knowledge work. Every imaginable element of the economy has been changing in east London for twenty years, and more rapidly than policy or planning can keep up.

It’s not over. For years to come, east London will be in transition, because transition is the defining feature of emerging economies. Of course, east London has two massive advantages which will shorten the timeline to a thriving, successful economy – if we get it right.

Firstly, east London is an integral part of the world’s foremost economic powerhouse. London really is different, not just from the rest of the UK, but from the rest of Europe and the world. It is the number one economic machine in the global economy, and will remain one of the world’s few pivotal cities for many, many years. Having that kind of economic momentum right alongside is a unique opportunity for east London to reach its full potential.

Secondly, and we may have reached the inflection point, east London now has a critical mass of private sector developments bringing their own momentum. With Canary Wharf as the fulcrum and itself growing, we see the City just to the west, the Olympic Park and Westfield’s Stratford City development northwards, London City Airport and Excel London to the east, and the O2 and Greenwich Peninsula southwards – a cluster of huge, mostly privately-funded, commercially-successful projects.

The public sector is not idle. The investment in the 2012 Games has galvanised local authority spending, itself matching – and leveraging – private sector contributions. And Crossrail, which splits in east London to cover both sides of the river Thames, will revolutionise travel and transport patterns across the whole south east of England.

Between them, these projects give out a firm signal that London’s growth is indeed eastwards.

Get it while it’s hot

East London is no longer a deprivation play. East London is an opportunity, perhaps the best economic opportunity in Europe or indeed the world.

Affordable access to global markets, world-class resources and unrivalled technologies in a stable economy with a rock-solid, first-world political and social structure – all the opportunities of an emerging economy, wrapped around the confidence factor of long-term political and economic stability.

See next week's exciting episode...

Next instalment, we’ll talk about what should be done to capitalise on all this opportunity, and how to attract the investment, the jobs and the future that east London deserves, and can provide for all.



[1] Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities, McKinsey Global Institute, March 2011, http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Urbanization/Urban_world
[2] London’s Poverty Profile, 2011, Trust for London and New Policy Institute, October 2011, http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/key-facts/overview-of-london-boroughs/  
[3] http://ltgdc.topleftdesign.com/ltgdc/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Potential-of-the-Golden-Triangle-Oxford-Economics.pdf, Assessing the Economic Potential of the Golden Triangle, Oxford Economics for LTGDC, 2011