Cuts, its never that easy

Margaret Thatcher, Conservative party Conference, 1980

The subsequent 5 years resulted in unemployment doubling in the UK after this speech. After years of kicking the can a politician eventually got a grip making Britain competitive in the global market place once more. It wasn't easy. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't sadistic. In fact it was political suicide but Maggie held her nerve. 

Talks about public sector cuts with Prime Minister Cameron claiming that not only will the private sector take up the slack within his term - but actually there will be more jobs is ludicrous. Just as I expected, within a month of power I can see David Cameron is no Maggie. The Tories talk the talk, declare swaggering budget cuts but its all soundbites. Clegg, his coalition buddy, meanwhile states that "this won't be like Thatcher, we will do it differently", contradicting the recent budget given by George Osbourne which is much worse than anything Geoffrey Howe had to administer. 

There is no chance the Conservatives will be able to do what they state - they don't even have a majority government which is based on a shaky coalition. Even if they did it will take longer than a term. Back when Thatcher was in office, at the 1983 election unemployment was still rising (setting post war records), the pound was dropping like a rock and the economy was still in taters. It took well into her second term to see the effects of her earlier policies. 

The idea that the private sector will take up the slack is just political wordplay. Its takes years for these things to change, a change in peoples will, a change in peoples expectations. People expect the UK bubble to carry on. So until reality kicks in, people will want the politicians to maintain the mirage which will mean its the market that has to force the people into the correct line of thinking, just like it did with Thatcher. We are a way off this so Mr Cameron will play kick the can down the road until this moment.

What factors are different this time? For one Cameron has to contend with a stronger opposition, and competent at that. People didn't necessarily like Thatcher back in the early eighties, but they couldn't stand Michael Foot and Labour who had increasingly moved so far left they were within touching distance of Joe Stalin and Mao. It was the oppositions weakness that helped Thatcher pursue what she did. Labour was so broken, the party splintered creating the SDP which ripped its support base in two. Thatcher could have campaigned with Adolf Hitler as her minister for for Justice - she still would have won a landslide back in '83. 

Thatcher also had a majority from 1979 unlike the current government. You try and reduce public spending you have another recession. We've only just emerged from the worst depression since the all-mighty one back in the 1930's. People won't warm to this. Then the budget deficit gets bigger. It did with Thatcher - it will do the same for Cameron if this is the path he takes. This would bring into question with the public the competence of the Tories with the economic policies they are pursuing. I know and you probably know that its the right path to take but many who are told the Keynesian way of thinking will not see it that way. 

The Unions are coming, North Sea Oil and Gas is running drier by the day and higher interest rates are inevitable over the next decade. We haven't liquidated anything - just like the Japanese during their lost decade we have propped up the banks and ensured zombie loans are kept afloat. Like a junkie we tell everyone we are good for it - we just need more time. But time is our worst enemy.

The problem with the current coalition is how long will it last with cuts on the agenda? The Tories may be historically comfortable in this setting but how many grass root Lib Dem supporters are going to swallow the medicine? Defection of many to Labour is inevitable. And remember - "things were going 'well' under Brown". This could cast the Tories in the wilderness for a decade if they practice what they preach. There's only so long you came blame the previous government for the mess. Give it a year and people won't be seeing Labour mess but will instead switch their view to Tory mess. Just like Thatcher. People forgot the Labour mess in the 70's, they just remember the early eighties.

The G8 or now the more relevant force the G20, have been putting austerity on the agenda. I think a basic illustration of economics is required to contrast spend and stimulus versus austerity, using the classic economic Crusoe example (there has been many takes on this over the years). Peter Schiff gives an excellent example in his latest book which I will list below. 


If we imagine a desert island with three people. These people all catch fish in order to survive and feed themselves. The problem is they have to use their hands, which is very time consuming so they spend all their time catching fish to live. However one day, one person decides to build a net. He spends a day constructing this, therefore foregoing current consumption and going with no food for that day. He is the entrepreneur within this small community and doesn't know if his endeavour will succeed. For the sake of argument his net is a success and he is now able to catch more fish in less time. So much so that he now has more leisure time and can eat more, thus consuming more. 

A simple example but it perfectly illustrates elementary economics. The current Keynesian thinking is that postponement of consumption is a bad thing but yet as we saw above this was in fact good. It is how society accumulates capital goods, tools, that enable us to enhance our productivity. Savings - the foregoing consumption should be embraced not deterred. The entrepreneurs risk taking has also benefited everyone. We should reward those who figure our how to do things more productively or cost effective, we all benefit over the long term. 

You see our recent solution was for the government to spend more, to destroy capital, to expropriate wealth from individuals. Raising taxes, printing money, raising deficits will never solve the economic question. Just like state planning never did. All it does is take away the net from the individual, remove incentives for innovations such as the net and encourage us to consume more rather than increase our productive capabilities. If the net breaks we can leave it and continue consuming our way out of trouble. That's why no amount of Paul Krugman stimulus will ever be enough because its the wrong thinking in the first place. He is saying we need to run faster just to stay still. I say we need to be leaner and think smarter to run just as fast only this time at a stroll.

The video of Thatcher at the start was right. However the left always like to use slogans of themselves such as compassionate, open, fairness, yet when an individual states they support the Conservatives they are ironically labelled Tory scum - and for what? Thatcher put us back in the global marketplace. She embraced Asia's awakening which enables us to buy many consumer goods for practically nothing. We moved out of mines with many of us into flexible workplaces, hours that suit us, working from home in relative luxury compared to how our ancestors had to work. The fact is the left still can't swallow the reality that Thatcher destroyed their ideological way of thinking in this country. John McDonnell's unwise words regarding wishing to assassinate her was not for her policies but rather that people like himself have no place in politics where 30 years ago they were everywhere in parliament. Was it nice that people had no jobs back during the early eighties? No, but this is the problem with statist elites. They cause the problems, blame markets, then ironically when things get that bad look to markets once more to solve the mess they made in the first instance. We still seem to be looking for state solutions. We have recently had hard talk, yes. But talk is cheap, when action is taken then the backtracking towards Keynes once more will commence. 

Britain, the Canary down the Western Coal Mine

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

Jim Callaghan - Speech at the Labour Party Conference, 28 September 1976

Gold prices had been on the rise for weeks, then all of a sudden fell back with a thud as we were told that only 11,000 jobs were lost in the US during November. Another Brown bounce in the polls left Cameron backtracking, austerity is so last month, instead 'growth' by government spending is now acceptable as policy is dictated by focus groups. The Middle Easts version of Las Vegas got a helping hand which was good news for many UK banks, however only a mere $80 Billion would have been at stake. Years ago it would have meant something, not today with Trillion dollar bailouts. China's vice governor at the peoples bank declared 'We must watch out for bubbles forming on certain assets, and be careful in those areas' referring to golds recent upward trajectory. Nice try, that deceit may wash with CNBC but those of us in the loop know full well that China would love to transfer much of their paper assets into hard assets such as Gold.

It's sometimes easy to forget what the average person thinks in relation to financial matters. Articles posted here are certainly not consistent with mainstream thinking. People are still on the same broken record, 'Buy a house now while prices are cheap before you get priced out', 'We are past the worst now and good times are ahead', 'The government will make a good profit for the taxpayers with the bank bailouts'. Ask people who read the financial sections of broadsheet newspapers about gold and you get told 'The price can go up as well as down' as though this is a unique quality that does not apply to other assets such as bonds, real estate or stocks. Indeed it is important to remember just what people are thinking, because you don't want to be on the same page as them. 'Repeat after me, Gold is a bubble, Central Banks can 'tame' markets, the sustainable recovery is here and there is no inflation! There is no spoon!' There's no analysis of the thunderstorm that is brewing in the distance.

So what about this Gold bubble then? People are right, however they are 5, 10, 15 years too early in calling it. People are buying the stuff because one day it will be a bubble as the Worlds Central Banks are busy blowing the next bubbles as I write. The currency and Government Bond bubbles will eventually burst causing mass inflation and creating the next bubble, commodities and precious metals. As Bernanke and Company try to assess how best to deal with bubbles, they fool the public as though these events are some mystical force that no one can control. I have a simple solution, how about stop printing so much money. We instead move from bubble to bubble, the Centrals banks policy after one pops is to inject further easy money into the system. Like some drunk who throws up after a bottle of vodka, 'I best have another to sort myself out'.

Could the US unemployment figures signal the turn with people getting back to work? Maybe in the short term, but I don't think this will be a long term trend. You have to remember governments everywhere are printing huge amounts of money and this is bound to give the so called 'prosperity' effect in the short term but it won't last, the free market hasn't healed. During the coming stagflation a lot of conventional indicators will seem to be healing when in fact the underlying fundamentals are deteriorating. For ten years after the credit crunch in 1973/74 the unemployment rate in the UK kept rising.

It didn't move up in a straight line, with periods of consolidation and even movements to the downside. When the correct path was taken it took years to fall. Numbered estimates in the news are useless, three million, four million, all have been given as figures for the short term, however no one can say for certain, all we do know is that history says it will keep rising over the long term.

For a developed country the British people sure do love their inflation. While many other nations inflation indices have plummeting like many a British Banks shares, the UK's inflation rate has remained remarkably 'sticky'. Whether its the appreciation of our assets, our rising incomes, our increased levels of debt or the fallacy that we believe the weak pound is good, we really do want to beat other nations in the race to the bottom. The yanks scream 'bloody murder' watching their beloved dollars debasement from the powers that be, not realising that one hundred years ago a British pound used to be worth $5. Anything you can do across the pond, we can do it much worse. Over the next decade I'm sure we will show the developed world what not to do. The problem I see is that British people want inflation. We want to see rising prices, we believe that this is a healthy state of affairs and will thus allow a greater level of leniency towards our policymakers compared with other nations when it comes to expansive monetary policy.

Will the BoE raise interest rates when the market forces their hand? Contrary to what people believe it is the market that controls long term interest rates. We may like to think of central banks under a paternalistic viewpoint, our saviours there to insulate us from financial destruction and chaos, to solve economic issues should they arise. Central bankers are just like their Communist Central Planning counterparts, eventually market forces get the better of them where eventually they follow the market, not set the tempo as they would have us all believe.

In order to understand how markets dictate prices such as interest rates its easier to compare the lowering of interest rates to say lowering the price of bread. If the government declared rather than liquidity not been easily accessible that the issue was now high bread prices, they therefore set forth a policy to fix the price lowering it below the market one. As suppliers begin making losses they shut down production, at the same time people consume more as they can purchase more of the product. Eventually the country runs out of bread with all stocks depleted. Rather than bite the bullet immediately the government would in all probability resort to rationing rather than admit the error of their ways with bread queues becoming a common occurrence. A black market may appear as people under their free will and against the governments law begin selling bread to one another for a price set by people, the marketplace. If however the government wishes to fix the state of affairs they must liberate the price once more, allowing the market to determine the price of production. As suppliers closed down long ago abandoning their supply networks it takes a short while for supply to meet demand once more. During this period the price of bread goes into the stratosphere as people bid up the cost of the present scarce bread. Eventually market forces will drive the cost down over time to a point of equilibrium.

How does bread relate to interest rates? Its the same principle. Governments can set the price low but eventually the market will force its hand to raise the price, with the price going into the stratosphere. This is why we had 18% interest rates when Thatcher tried to put things right, or when Paul Volker put US rates above 20%. The policy makers were just chasing the market, trying to reign in inflation which was driving the free markets interest rates haywire. During the 1973/74 credit crunch Central Banks had the same idea as now, that is they lowered interest rates in response to the recession, but the longer and lower you try to hold down these prices the higher and sharper they have to eventually rise as many an older reader will painfully remember.

The BoE could be forced to raise interest rates under a number of scenarios. They may have to raise rates if there is a currency crisis with the pound falling as investors flee. Like the bread situation above, they will put off the price liberation, instead they will put currency controls or limits on capital (like bread rationing) in order to try and provide a short term fix. Eventually the market beats them and they have to hike rates as over the long run a lack of foreign investment creates a less dynamic economy and higher inflation.

It could be forced to raise rates if inflation got out of hand with the free market demanding increased real rates of return to negate the depreciation of the currency. Even if central banks keep buying government debt at artificially low rates, private banks still lend to all of us, with this mortgage rates could rise for example. Its similar to what we see now, despite base rates at near zero average mortgage rates are far higher as the free market realises there are inflation risks over the medium to long term. They are also hedging against their potential losses as the government props them up.

However they could do none of the above. They could keep rates low, spurring on more inflation as the government can no longer afford increased rates on the ever expanding debt. They by pass the market and lend to individuals themselves at these rates. They print money directly to cover the shortfall in the various government payrolls. Currency collapse is ensured at this point as it becomes clear to all that its time to pack your suitcase. Marc Faber believes this is the conundrum America will face at some point in which its policymakers will not rise to challenge, instead they will shirk away from the correct action to take, opting for runaway inflation. At some point the stock market of such a country would be a screaming buy, just at the depths of the seemingly never ending hyperinflation when the average person has lost all confidence.

Could the UK be the Canary down the Western coal mine? There are many other nations with serious issues that have faced or will face issues sooner, but I wouldn't put them in the same tier as Britain, a nation who still has a recent innovative and industrious past. She could however, be the warning signal for many other Western nations that mass inflation and/or interest rate rises are just around the corner. Either option ain't pretty.

What the Autumn may Bring ...

History has a habit of repeating itself. Markets also, follow a similar pattern as history can show. As Summer draws to close, as we enter Autumn, I feel we are in for another action packed time, similar to the close of 2008. Optimism is in the air all around with a complete turnaround of sentiment. When the majority are optimistic, its best to go against the tide and September and October are historically torrid times for the markets. There is evidence all around the globe that imbalances still exist - many worsening as time passes. China is in a rampant bubble driven by the Communist party. Many Eastern European nations are close to currency crisis, exposing many Western European countries who have lent them money. Sterling continues to worsen, as the UK leads the developed world in printing money and debauching the currency. Liquidation is put on hold, as governments believe they can avoid the inevitable. There have already been ominous signs for this month, with the classic August stock market volatility. Central Banks are planning their next moves, in the US there have been rumors regarding a second stimulus package as the first one runs out.

If we take a look at the VIX (the volatility index) it has been moving downwards since the events last October. Notice how quick it can move upwards as last year shows.


There was always going to be a market rally. Nothing ever moves straight up, or straight down. There are always periods of consolidation. If we look at Sterling, it has rallied quite substantially since its dramatic decline last year. Does this mean it has reached a low? I'm afraid not, all the fundamentals point for it to resume its bear market run, and if I was a trader I'd be looking to put shorts on Sterling as the next few months should see a deterioration once more. Sterling looks once again a basket case currency as it did during the sixties and seventies with a new generation that is fooled with the same rhetoric past politicians used to say to justify the devaluations.

30-40 years ago the politicians always justified the devaluations. We need to buy time, it will make our exports more competitive, we need to 'invest' to keep jobs and so forth. Roll forward 30 years and the same fallacies are being told. The idea that a devalued currency can bring prosperity is sheer madness, if it was that easy then no one would have to innovate or increase productivity. Over the long term this policy never works. You need a strong currency and a strong government to put the breaks on and say 'Ok, we tried to inflate, it didn't work, therefore we will stop the printing'. As painful as this would be it works. People adjust, they become more competitive, make better products, start investing. This is how you become wealthy and give your exports the edge. This is what Japan and West Germany did.

After the Second World War both these nations had worthless currencies. War torn, people had resorted to bartering rather then use government money, they had no currency reserves and their people were living in poverty. Nations usually have to get in this state before politicians get a spine and change their ways and that's what happened. Germany abandoned the flawed Reichmark and introduced the Deutsche Mark with a new emphasis on maintaining a sound currency, and so began Wirtschaftswunder, the great Germany economic miracle. Britain meanwhile became the sick man of Europe and was synonymous with the term 'Brain Drain', despite getting more American Aid than the Germans from the Marshall Plan. Germans on the other hand enjoyed a booming economy, one that had low inflation during the stagflationary seventies.

Japan also took a similar route. Their goal was to get Western Currency, and the only way they knew how to do that was to sell quality products that Westerners wanted to buy, and in return they got their pieces on paper. Did they debase the Yen to achieve this? They did the exact opposite and they created quality products. Westerners used to joke about Japanese products (similar to what they say about Chinese ones now as China tries to emulate Japan) but what do people think of when they see Sony, Toyota or Seiko now? They did this while the Yen appreciated, innovating, increasing productivity and smashing the Americans once dominance of export markets during the 1950's and 1960's. The only reason Nissan or other such companies placed their factories here in the UK is for shipping costs and the 'enlightened' tariffs governments have imposed to 'save' jobs. Even if the Chinese or whoever could do it cheaper.

Of course Japan and Germany are different entities now. Their first and second generations built their wealth and generally as the generations move on it gets wasted. They aren't the countries they used to be. Nations such as China are where Japan were back in the 1960's, a generation who still remember Communist hardship, whose parents still remember the mass poverty and killings. Following a similar model they had no currency reserves and now have amassed $2 Trillion Dollars, and are still amassing them. They have high savings rates like Japan once had and are becoming a huge creditor nation. All of this takes huge personal sacrifice. Sacrifice many current western generations are not willing to make.

So will anyone take similar action as the above for the UK? I don't believe so. Things haven't got that desperate yet. They will keep debasing telling the public the reasons above, a noose will slowly tighten around the government. Spending out of control, exports unable to pay for imports, international investors dumping the currency, tax increases on businesses driving out talent, with the process going full circle. Of course the markets will force their hand eventually. We are a way off yet, but I feel this is what it will take. A real crisis. We should see currency controls at some point in the future as the government attempts to bolster Sterling. They may even start with limiting the amount of foreign money you can take abroad.

People in the UK, I feel, are putting too much trust in David Cameron and the Conservatives, that they will win the election next year and all will be fine, however I personally think the trust is misplaced. Tory Party members have recently attacked the NHS and David Cameron has shown what he feels. He wants the NHS and is willing to spend more money on it. I don't think he has the conviction to scale back government significantly and even if he did the damage is already too bad. Mr Cameron seems to want to mimic Labour as close as he can and won't want to upset the public too much. Even if he was like Thatcher, back then the deficit wasn't as bad, we had oil and gas, and we weren't monetising our debt on the scale we are now. Thatcher would recoil in what needs to be done under our current circumstances.

In a nutshell the world still has plenty more deleveraging, which means Governments will be looking to carry on with printing more money. The UK has continued with QE and for some reason this shocked the markets recently, but it shouldn't have shocked any regular readers to this blog. It will keep on going, £200B, £300B and so on. I don't know how much but I do know there is no way they will sell it all back to the market like many believe. Not when the nation is running deficits for the next decade at least. Now the path has been embarked upon it becomes very hard to stop, and as our politicians were all too weak to take the pain from the credit crunch there is no way they will stop the monetising of government debt. You see people still don't understand and tell themselves "Well we will just wait a bit until the credit crunch passes then we will sort out this or that". It doesn't work like that. The easiest path would have been to take the pain fully as soon as the credit crunch hit. Once you postpone it, you make it worse and then politicians keep saying we will wait until this next crisis passes etc. Then the markets force their hand, and then a nation faces real hardship with no alternatives left.

In times like this there is only one asset for amateur investors - Gold. It reveals all the lies the government and media tell us. Its price tells you what is really happening. Recently the asset has been mentioned in the press, with commentators talking about it, however they still don't understand its value. They ask the wrong questions such as "Why would you place value in Gold?", rather than "Why do you place value in Sterling?". Ignorance and historic naivety, its amazing how well we have been conditioned away from Gold and Silver, free market money. Over a hundred years ago our ancestors would have gasped in horror at the financial system we live in. Four Pounds used to buy an ounce of Gold back then, now its more like 570. Gold may have made the news but what do commentators say when they mention it? Should people sell at these high prices. People are interviewed selling the stuff. When did you ever hear these people call a bubble, and now they seem to think Gold is in one. It will be in a bubble when they are all telling people to buy the stuff, its a safe investment, supply and demand and all that jazz. There's a long way to go until that moment happens.

Gold also tells you the truth of real prices. While people were hysterical regarding house prices, did they realise what was actually happening to the true price? Of course in Sterling prices shot up 200-300% but what about another currency, for example Gold, true historic value. In Gold house prices were stagnant as Gold climbed a similar amount during the same period against Sterling. You could have saved yourself all the hassle of estate agents, mortgage brokers, Tenants, property maintenance and so on, and bought gold in a few minutes online and sat back. Sterling lost its value which gave the illusion that houses were worth more. In other words we never had a housing boom. We had good old currency debasement, mass inflation. Its the same with Oil and so forth. Oil jumped ahead last summer due to demand being larger than supply, but its now still up around 300% since its low 10 years ago in say dollars, but in Gold it hasn't moved.

The governments in recent months have allowed the banks to use false accounting laws. If the market did this the company executives would be sent to jail, but when the Government changes the rules its fine, just like before the S&L crisis blew up. Central Banks have all sorts of worthless paper on their balance sheets. They are monetising the deficits. The banks they have nationalised are trying to lend further money to the economy. Easy money, ruins society. It always has throughout time. The decline of the Roman Empire as they debased their Gold Coins. The Spanish Empire as the Conquistadors drove out the Islamic Moors from what is now Andalucia and continued their conquests by discovering the Gold laden lands of South America, again easy money same effects. Latin American nations throughout the 20th Century had government after government who pursued similar mistakes, despite places like Argentina being richer than the US 100 years ago. Italy and Britain during the sixties and seventies played with easy money and look where it got them during the seventies devaluation sagas. What remained of British Industry collapsed, as companies thought they could keep selling on price, rather than quality and innovation, but eventually costs go up also as companies become sloppy relying on further devaluations to bail them out.

Politicians are too tempted to play the easy money card as the great deflationary juggernaut, China, exports low cost products, recycling their money back to the West to encourage further easy money policies here. China have studied their history well and know full well how destructive easy money is to society, and realise what they are doing to the West.

Unfortunately when Fiat currency exists it is a lot harder for the Government to face the pain and do what is right for the long term. Easy money means easy living for the short term, but it just impoverishes society in the long run and puts a greater burden on future generations. We should have another scramble for cash over the coming months, but I suspect this will be the last scramble for the fiat currencies. After that only true money that has a historic track record such as Gold will be desired. What will the Autumn bring ... we will all have to wait and see.

Political Capital

"Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason."
Unknown Author

It's been a week Gordon Brown would like to forget. Hazel Blears has questioned his leadership over the weekend, stating the party needs to connect with people and show a more 'human' side. A humiliating mid-week defeat in the commons over the Gurkha's gave his opponents an opportune moment to pose in front of a just cause. With this defeat displaying dissent within the party ranks, Brown didn't risk carrying forward the recent politicians expenses bill instead backing down on these proposals. On his travels he managed to get a bashing from the Poles and the Chileans, regarding government spending restraint and building up money during the good years. Those 'Tory' Boom and Bust remarks are also coming back to haunt him as unemployment climbs, entailing hardship worse than when Gordon as a young backbench MP lamented the government on the lack of jobs. Contrast this with Obama in the US, and we can see quite different fortunes. Here Barack Obama can do no wrong. The recent G20 meeting exemplified this as the worlds leaders clambered to be seen with the charismatic leader. Political Capital - the credibility and perceived vision of a person - is all important in the world of politics.

It wasn't always like this for Gordon Brown. When he became the unelected Prime Minister, Labour did gain in popularity as Tony Blair's political capital had slowly ebbed away. As the financial events have evolved, fortunes have changed and since Brown was involved in the economic decisions of the past decade it has consequently meant his creditability with the public is in many ways non-existent. Similar to Jim Callaghan thirty years ago, both were former chancellors who became prime minister, both became the tallest PM in each of their eras and both inherited a domestic economy in turmoil, in part their own doing. A successful politician can obtain their capital in two ways, by circumstantial chance, or by genuine integrity.

Nelson Mandela is an iconic figure, a universal political and diplomatic celebrity. People with no interest in politics instantly recognise him. He is a classic example of political capital that he built up by himself for his integrity and devotion for the apartheid cause. As the leader of the militant wing of the ANC, Spear of a Nation, Mandela was involved in various guerrilla warfare operations, sabotaging many government installations (he was influenced by the readings of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong). It was on these acts of sabotage he was charged, which he admitted to and was sentenced to serve time on robben island. During this he was offered various offers to renounce the armed struggles of the anti-apartheid movement in exchange for his freedom, all of which he declined. These half measures would not be enough as he sought complete equality. With International apartheid economic sanctions further crippling the South African economy along with growing unrest, secret talks were opened with Mandela and the National Party Government to allow free democratic elections for all.

There would not be many political leaders who would endure the above, and many would have resentment towards the current government, but not Mandela. He realised South Africa needed the whites, as they were the educated ones who would be required for the new knowledge economy. He also realised that fiscal and government restraint were the solutions towards wealth - not increased government, or generous welfare programs for the Black public who would be his main supporters.

It was these tough decisions that Mandela was prepared to make, at the risk of unpopularity. Yet his political capital shone through. The ANC were voted in, with large sections of the White population voting for him as they realised change was needed. The recent South African elections still show how much mass appeal Mandela has, as the ANC wheeled him out in order to gain further support for a new generation of ANC leaders, whose capital is no where near as large. Nelson Mandela is a classic example of political capital built through integrity, principles and self sacrifice.

There is another type of political capital, that of just being plain lucky. Tony Blair gained the leadership of the Labour party back in 1994. A recession, a government that had been in power for nearly two decades which was mired in scandal after scandal, Blair was the right guy in the right place. An opportunist, who as Home Secretary copied his Tory counterpart, tough on crime tough on the causes of crime, and continued the imitation of the opposition when he led the party. The 1997 election proved to be a landslide. For the next 10 years Blair would be at the helm as everything fell into place. The rise of Asia as a low cost labor destination, the explosion of telecommunications that enabled further off shoring of office operations to such destinations. Record low Oil prices, which allowed the industrialised countries of the west to further grow along with Asia. The peaking production of North Sea Oil and Gas providing a nice tax stream for the Treasury along with the distortion the pounds value and the balance of payments. The British population coming into the prime of their working age, as many of the boomers were in their 30's, 40's and 50's, putting institutions such as education and the NHS under less fiscal pressures. The ending of 'The Troubles' as Northern Ireland looked for peace after a generation of conflict who had just had enough. Thatchers reforms during the eighties that got rid of industries that Britain had become uncompetitive in and moving into other jobs. The rise of London as a giant hedge fund that created wealth out of nothing, or so it would seem at the time. The accession of Eastern European nations such as Poland into the EU provided limitless cheap low and high skilled labor, doing jobs British people didn't want to do or couldn't do.

All of this provided Tony Blair with the perfect political platform, that gave him capital and leverage that he could do as he pleased, with little dissent. Tony Blair told middle England what they wanted to hear. He promised social justice with no intention of raising income taxes, so middle England could feel better about themselves rather than the guilt they had felt under Thatcher. He could give them everything, when in reality he did nothing. All the events detailed above did the real work. Blair would later admit as much.

So can Brown survive and can he regain his political capital? Once politicians begin to lose their political capital it becomes very hard to recapture it. Ted Heath's clashes with the Miners which resulted in the three day week, or Anthony Eden's moment with the Suez crisis, each lost them vital political capital and they never regained it back. There is only one way Brown and Labour can regain political capital. If the opposition implodes, but this seems highly unlikely. The other is a leadership challenge, to try and get some fresh capital back. There has been discussions of this for a while and I feel we are still too early from the general election. The local elections to be held in June will provide valuable insight into the immediate damage that has been inflicted. A devastating defeat and members of the party may get restless, with a leadership challenge likely. Political capital, either from timing or integrity, is vital in politics. Neither of which Gordon Brown has.

The Children's Budget

"I shake my head in despair. As the Chancellor faces a terrible fiscal position no one outside the Treasury will believe the forecasts. When I saw the public spending plans I nearly fell off my chair"
Michael Saunders, chief UK economist at Citigroup

"The increase in debt servicing costs alone will be between £35bn and £47bn per year in 2008 money. That is more than the annual transport budget. It is about the same as the entire annual defence budget, and about half the annual education budget."
Danny Gabay, head of Fathom Consulting


In 1909 David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered what became known as the Peoples Budget. It's primary aim was to raise taxes on the rich in an attempt to redistribute wealth within society, which in its day was a historical and radical set of measures. One Hundred years later, Alistair Darling delivered another historic budget, however it was under quite different circumstances. With finances spiralling out of control and a country heading for the worst post war recession, there was no room for social justice. Again a Labour government had spent too much. History will judge it as the Children's Budget.

The repetition of all the budgets figures are not required here, suffice to say the numbers are truly horrendous given the optimistic forecasts the government has used. Some of the areas of worry are:

Future Economic Growth
We are in the midst of the worst recession any living person would have experienced. Looking back at history when events like this happen, economies take years or a decade or more to recover from these credit excesses. The growth projections given yesterday were lies. Not even Mr Darling believed them. The idea that the economy will grow at the end of the year, and be in the thick of a new boom within a couple of years is nonsense. The economy will continue its decline for this year and the next. If there is any recovery after - which this author does not believe - it will be weak at best. Not 3.5% growth. The IMF have recently projected -4.1% and -0.6% growth for the next two years, however they are still playing catch up and their projections have always been wrong. Expect further revisions to these numbers.

Peaking of Debt levels
The government claims that debt will peak at around 80% and again it is more lies, and the markets know it too. It will go much higher. For readers of this blog you will also be aware that this is only the official debt figure. There's many off book debts to come, just at the time they claim debt will peak.

Deficits turning to surpluses?
In order to try and pay the debt back the government needs to be running budget surpluses. Estimates again, state that the deficit will drop below the £100B mark around 2013/2014 with the admission that it may take a decade to balance the books - to just break even. Then we get to the point where we need to be running surpluses to pay for all this debt. We can let our children worry about that. Whose going to fund all this? Isn't global capital low, with the high saving nations in Asia enacting their own stimulus plans? The main buyers of Government bonds have been foreign buyers but for how long?

All of the above is based on government estimates. Estimates that will prove to be as wrong as the estimates of 2008, or the ones in 2007 and so on. There were no proposals to try and balance these figures, which is to be expected as the election looms with unpopular decisions being put back. However the longer the government postpone action, the worse the hardship will be. By not creating a credible framework for balancing the books the risk of further gilt strikes are inevitable. David Cameron again had no polices that would attempt to rectify the perilous position as he follows the focus group discussions not wishing to disturb his poll leads, sending signals to investors that Britain has no intention of paying its creditors back.

The budget was full of contradictions. We had the various environment measures for wind power and then there were incentives to build more Coal power plants along with tax breaks for Oil and Gas. They announced they will pay people to buy new cars, which is in effect throwing money away. We may as well employ some people to dig holes and another set of people to fill them in, rather than subsidise car purchases - at least it will keep the unemployment figures down. If double glazing sales start dropping is the government going to pay people to smash windows in order to create artificial demand? There was extra money for the Job Centre network, when the job market is shrinking. A scheme to back mortgage backed securities, dead assets, further preventing liquidation that is needed in order to bring about the recovery Darling mentions. However the biggest move was an introduction of a new high income tax.

The 50% rate of tax was welcomed by many - "get the rich, they got us in this mess" as many will say. However readers of this blog will be aware it is government that got us in this mess. Unsound money, central planning price stability created huge distortions in the economy. However this tax increase is just a foot in the door. We will all be paying much more in tax in the coming years like I have previously mentioned - crushing any recovery for a generation or more. It was the increase in income tax by Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt that assisted in the prolongation of the great depression. By hitting wealth we are also sending a signal to the rest of the world, that if you work hard in the UK we will confiscate your earnings. Suggestions of a brain drain has begun before any of the real hardship has even started. Before our boomers begin to retire. Before we run out of cheap energy. Before printing money has had its full ruiness effects and so on. It also marks a further nail in the coffin for the city of London as a financial center of the world.

With the above there is no hope of retaining quick growth again. By taxing the entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth for us all we are further impoverishing ourselves. Then there's the point will they pay? There could be a negative effect with more people looking to avoid the tax. Tax revenues could actually fall, as less jobs are created as successful business leaders and entrepreneurs wonder what will happen next. The IFS has recently supported this claim, however I don't think they appreciate the full damage of a policy such as this.

Healy or Howe?

There were discussions about if the increase in income taxes represents a return to Old Labour, or if the cuts to come in spending represent a return to Thatcherite economics. We are a long way from Old Labour 83% high tax brackets, but we are heading in the same dangerous direction. Then there's the myth of the supposed Thatcher Monetarism economics that prevailed during the eighties. Government spending barely moved during her time as prime minister. Standing at around 42.5% in 1977/78, it was 41.7% ten years later. She actually spent more than Ted Heath and Harold Wilson as spending on government rose 32% in real terms through the eighties credit boom. Thatcher kept this fact quiet as she prided herself on the illusion of getting government out of the way, controlling the money supply, the Milton Friedman philosophy. In Milton Friedman's later life he would be critical of the governments and central banks who inflated in his name, rejecting his original ideas that they could be trusted to control the money supply. The Austrian Economists always told him governments could never be trusted. Nevertheless taxes and unprecedented public spending cuts will be required - both of which we have never experienced in tandem. We will need more substantial cuts then just "savings efficiencies" to balance the books and tax rises that can actually make an impact on the deficit.

The government are also starting to admit they may have to take losses on the bank bailouts they carried out, rather than the profit many believed. As I have said before I will be happy to get half the money back. Wait until the losses really start stacking up. There will be an incredible strain in the gilts market for years to come, with further money printing to cover the shortfall as investors appetite for our debt wanes. Indeed questions of Britain's AAA rating has become mainstream news now, as a ten year old could do the sums and realise they don't add up.

Green Shoots?
Before the budget there had been more discussions of green shoots of recovery or the bottom of this and that. These green shoots will be mentioned for years to come as I have mentioned before, many will be fooled by the bull moves in this bear market we find ourselves in. I started this blog around this time last year and everyone was saying the same. The 'worst is behind us', 'the credit crunch won't effect us', 'the UK has sound fundamentals' with everyone having an almost religious belief in the state of the economy. There is plenty more pain to come. Mistakes of history are being repeated which are once again impoverishing society. Unemployment has only just begun its climb. The next bubble, government debt has yet to pop and cause havoc. Energy prices and commodities are historically low. Retirement has yet to set in. As the year goes on the FTSE will hit new lows possibly hitting levels around the mid 1990's in a best case situation.

So the Children's Budget has been announced. A decade of deficits, and a generation of hardship. These were the debts I have been talking about. The debts I knew were in the system, waiting to hatch out and there's much more to come. The debts that are now staring my generation and future generations in the face. Many Western Governments will find themselves in a similar situation, but Britain has managed to come up with the largest deficits of the developed world, even without the substantial stimulus packages other nations are putting in place. The greatest asset we have is a long history of democracy and peoples individual rights, but we have a government that is continuing along the path towards bankruptcy. It's all unsustainable and must be stopped, immediately, if not for our sake then for future generations sake.

UK Bubble RIP

"The City of London is pretty much finished ... and if you're alarmed by the recent slump in sterling, you ain't seen nothing yet. In a decade, you're going to be importing oil again - what's going to hold sterling up when you're a net importer of oil? You've already got a balance of trade deficit. I've sold all of my sterling ... there are no fundamentals to support sterling as far as I can see"
Jim Rogers, Chairman Rogers Holdings

"But if investors no longer think the UK's banks are at risk of collapse, they then look at our other vulnerabilities - such as public sector borrowing which is rising very sharply because of the costs of the bank rescues, dwindling tax revenues and the need to spend our way through the economic downturn ... If international investors fear our credit isn't what it was and are selling pounds, we should hardly be surprised."
Robert Preston, BBC Journalist

Since the end of the First World War, Britain had been in a state of terminal decline. Recently, however, the worlds financial markets were loosing confidence in Sterling as the Treasury could no longer balance the books, with ever increasing government spending that could no longer be paid for. By Autumn the pound was plunging, inflation was rampant and the Prime Minister was trying to keep his party together after just recently obtaining the job. The year was 1976. The UK in the end had to go cap in hand to the IMF to avoid economic collapse, the first Western Nation to do so, and only Western nation up until Iceland's recent decline. It ushered in a wave of right wing Thatcherist economic policies which prevailed up until the present day and changed British politics and society forever. The Labour party after the crisis subsequently split between the old left who remained, and the Social Democrats, who later abandoned the Labour party and joined forces with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats. Labour also morphed in subsequent years, from the early eighties the 'loony left' politics of Michael Foot, all the way to 'New Labour' a 'Third Way' led by Tony Blair, who won power in 1997 and for the first term emulated Tory spending plans.

Without North Sea Oil and Gas as the seventies came to an end, the UK could have become an economic wreck, and Margret Thatchers monetarist policies in all probability would have failed putting the final nail in the coffin. The UK's trade of balance would have collapsed without the support from the Oil and Gas revenues. In the end, the UK experienced a renaissance and shook itself out of the terminal decline it had found itself in. However in 2008, the UK again showed strains with investors questioning a new generation of Labour Politicians, wondering if history was repeating itself again. Expansive fiscal measures had been announced, with huge government deficits being forecast and the balance of trade in once again, a perilous state. The UK bubble had burst and with it, she resumed her long decline after the illusionary reprieve of the last 25 years.

Over the past 11 years the Labour government has won successive elections, which no other Labour government in history could achieve. Tony Blair won a historic third term and with it, the party had gained the trust of the people regarding economic affairs. It was no surprise that there was a reversal in opinion regarding the economic competence between the Conservatives and Labour which had once favoured the former, now favoured the later. 'New' Labour was nothing more than a Thatcherist project, one that the Iron Lady herself would jokingly remark was her greatest achievement. Labour had increased the Plutocracy that was seen under Thatcher, with little change in the social apparatus of the country. They continued with Tory Policies, such as PFI, the selling of state assets or Privatisation and the push towards the services industry, in particular the over zealous belief in financial services. Yet this 'Third Way' obtained some false perception among the British public, that social responsibility or progress was greatly enhanced under 'New Labour policies', even though it was evidently Thatcherism but under these new false social pretensions. Of course like all socialist governments they were tied to their socialist dogmas, with the incessant need to 'help' people under the guise of the states apparatus. Their spending deficits became more prominent after the honeymoon period, with needless spending and increasing bureaucratic waste. As the global economy began its historic downturn, the government was now exposed for all its true colours. Relative poverty was as bad as ever, hospital deaths from new super bugs had increased with some of the worst standards in Western Europe. The decline in state pensions had not been reversed since Thatcher pegged them to CPI rather than average earnings, which had now become officially the worst in Western Europe. No real social progress had been made, and the economy had become even more imbalanced with government finances in a dire shape with all the one time privatisation cash cows now all but gone. It would soon be 1976 all over again.

So why did the UK have such an extraordinary post 1970's renaissance? The biggest free gift which gave a healthy revenue stream was the North Sea Oil and Gas that had been discovered during the Sixties. This in effect saved the UK from a perilous plight. It enabled Thatcher to follow in the lead of Federal Chairman Paul Volcker and implement Monetarist Policies in order to contract the money supply and cut government spending, suppressing inflation that was causing havoc in the UK's ability to conduct trade. Without the Oil and Gas revenue stream it is very hard to say if she would have been successful, as even with this, there was still huge unemployment and civil unrest. With sound monetary policies Thatcher could then next turn her attention to the Unions who had held successive governments to ransom during the stagflationary seventies. A move towards a more dynamic workforce was critical in positioning Britain for the global challenges that would evolve over the coming decades. The battle against the 'Shock trooper' Union, specifically the miners lead by Arthur Scargill, was subsequently won by Thatcher and meant that the Unions were subdued. The reformation of tax, meant external capital was once again flowing back into Britain, fueling further economic expansion. With tax cuts came the problem of raising sufficient government revenues and Thatchers solution was privatisation, the selling of state assets for dirt cheap prices giving the government a once only large cash flow. Without getting into the flaws or the advantages of privatisation, this is what happened in the UK, but it is a once and once only money machine. The state was slowly selling off its family estate. In 1986 the 'Big Bang' policy deregulated the financial markets and in came the all conquering US Investment Banks, along with further external flows of capital. Thatcher had begun reinvigorating London as the financial center of the World once more, like the bygone age of British hegemony at the turn of the century.

Manufacturing was in solid decline, indeed recession, for the subsequent two decades. The turn towards services was deemed to be Britain's area of strength after the fiasco of Nationalising the Car Industry during the seventies which ended in disaster. An age of retail had begun, consumerism ruled Britannia, with Marks and Spencer becoming the darling of British Retail. Margret Thatcher had a very conservative childhood with strong family values and thrift. Ironically she presided over Britain's largest credit boom of its day, a new consumerism had taken over the nation. Of course all credit induced booms end in bust and this was no different. After unpopular polices such as the Poll tax, and mutiny within the party, Thatcher was ousted and replaced by John Major. As the bust continued Sterling collapsed as it was ejected from the ERM. The subsequent years of 'Tory sleaze' and their old tired public image lead to the publics rediscovery of the opposition. Under Tony Blair Labour had become 'respectable' once more and with amendments to the party manifesto, mainly the abolishment of Clause IV regarding nationalisation, and a pledge not raise income taxes, Labour were voted in on a landslide.

Once in power Labour initially adhered to the policies of Tory tax and spend. They continued with further privatisation of state assets. They ramped up the PFI projects they had once opposed while in opposition, with further increase in off book government debts. During their time North Sea Oil and Gas reached its peak production, with the UK exporting it in ever greater quantities. With the abandonment of Coal during the political clashes of the eighties, the UK drew more of its power now from Gas fired power stations rather than turn to Nuclear options like the French. While in Norway they kept a substantial portion of their Oil and Gas revenues in the Government Pension Fund, for future generations to enjoy and to smooth out the coming decline, Britain in typical Anglo Saxon consumerism spent it all. Debt began its exponential climb upwards as the UK reached its economic peak, as people racked up further debts just at a time the UK would be ill equipped to pay them in the future. More external investors flooded the island with capital, from Russia the Middle East or Asia, London was the nations financial artery, directing more money into a heavy debt laden economy. This further fueled more credit expansion, with the need for less internal savings. The financial liberalisation of the 1980's from the Big Bang came to a pinnacle as British banks expanded more and more, with traditional conservative Building Societies moving into the realm of risk. Northern Rock, with 125% mortgages, or the 'Together Plan', became the dynamic dynamo of London, what would soon be the Enron of the UK.

During this time the Labour government had been increasing spending ever more, running continual budget deficits, with ever more rosy growth projections from the 'prudent' chancellor Gordon Brown. As Oil and Gas production began to decline and with ever increasing reliance on imports, Britains trade of balance deteriorated further. Warning signs were there, but few wanted to acknowledge them. This was after all the new dynamic Britain, who its people believed had become a strong economy with solid foundations. However as the American housing market bubble began to unwind, so did many financial instruments and institutions. Britain had uniquely positioned itself precariously reliant on finance, only Iceland had an even more foolish model. With the global slowdown, came a collapse in the main British Industries, finance, housing and retail. The service economy where we could all become sales people, skills and trades had been outsourced, with everyone getting cuts and no real value being created, was beginning to unwind. Sterling was beginning its decline. Unfunded government borrowing was beginning to occur once more. The UK was not bankrupt, but began on the path towards it.

Just like the seventies where key manufacturing industries were nationalised, the UK government had once again made the same costly errors, this time with the Banking system. RBS, Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock and further shareholdings in other banks will paralyse the sector for years to come. Without the luxury of being the worlds reserve currency or a major currency such as the Euro, Sterling can't afford to be exposed the way it has. Even with Sterling falling week on week the politicians continue to make more mistakes, recently with the policy of paying the nations mortgages if there is personal loss of income. This will Compound the issues with the battered banks they have nationalised. More money will be needed to pay peoples mortgages and as the banks can't liquidate their assets, will need further government capital injections - a double disaster as the economy tailspins out of control. Indeed, the UK is even beginning on the road to loosing its triple A credit status. It will just be a matter of time before it does. External capital flows are drying up, with Sovereign Wealth Funds questioning their Investment strategy in the once 'dynamic' island. Rather than waiting for the Pound to collapse, Gordon Brown has begun looking for alternatives to try and shelter the UK from the coming decay.

The current government, just like the populace, are in a state of denial. Over optimistic growth forecasts are continually used, with Growth projected to rebound sharply to 2% at the end of 2009. A quite fundamentally flawed figure. I'm not sure the leaders truly appreciate the risks they are currently running with increased government debt, and a further deteriorating economy with no credible plans to reverse these current conditions. The suggestion that they won't be able to balance the books until 2016, shows what a mess we are in, as it uses these optimistic forecasts. With ever decreasing options the Bank of England has begun with suggestions of the nuclear option, namely the printing press, as the options addressed above used by previous governments have all been exhausted. The media are under the illusion a Japan like scenario could occur, however we are not the worlds largest creditor nation like Japan was then, and do not have a trade surplus. Japan tried to inflate like we are now, but failed due to these reasons. We however will succeed and face years of stagflation once again, just like the seventies. The governments are continually propping up the private sector, but no one is asking the real questions. Who will prop up the government? Even mainstream commentators understand the implications, as Robert Preston states just before the Nuclear Option was announced,

"Some analysts see this as the start of the money printing-presses being turned on with a vengeance, a deliberate attempt to stoke up inflation to reduce the real value of all those excess debts. I'm not sure we are there yet - though it's probably only a matter of time."

UK Government debt is set to explode over the next few years, with off book debts being realised as unfunded pension liabilities, Bank Loans, PFI and declining energy revenues further impair Britain's finances. Central Banks and governments have begun explaining the false dangers of deflation, however they know perfectly well they are preparing for inflation, one that will make the seventies mild in comparison. The reduction of interest rates is further evidence of this, by giving no incentives to save, just the further encouragement to spend and upkeep the velocity of money. Victorian thrift has long gone.

Of course there are no economic fundamentals to support the UK, as the quote at the start states. All of the above, PFI, nationalised finance, unfunded government spending, privatisation, pension liabilities and off book debts, will now go into reverse. Just as they exacerbated the boom on the way up, they will exacerbate the bust on the way down, all compounding with one another over the coming decade.

However, when history is examined Britain has a long and successful functioning liberal democratic system, one that was able to survive the excessive debts obtained during the wars with France, and with it rose as the global power. With debts in excess of 200% of GDP, the UK did not default like many other nations did. It instead paid all the bond holders even in a period of extraordinary deflation during the pioneering phase of the Industrial Revolution. She rose to become the greatest creditor nation the world had seen, spearheading what we now associate as modernity. As Europe succumbed to Fascism during the crisis in capitalism throughout the 1930's, Britain maintained its traditional liberal democracy. These historical factors alone won't prevent the decline of Britain. It involves a painful transitionary period, which politicians are notorious for preventing. Even with this there are no guarantee's as Britain is not what it once was in 1815 and the world is a much different place. We may have seen a high in the UK in our lifetimes. We may be witnessing the beginning of terminal decline.

A Ringing Endorsement

An article has been published recently on the Internet which I found very interesting. It was a monetary statement published by Dr Gono the Governor of the Bank of Zimbabwe earlier this year in April. I have included snippets from the article below.

"As Monetary Authorities, we have been humbled and have taken heart in the realization that some leading Central Banks, including those in the USA and the UK, are now not just talking of, but also actually implementing flexible and pragmatic central bank support programmes where these are deemed necessary in their National interests."

"That is precisely the path that we began over 4 years ago in pursuit of our own national interest and we have not wavered on that critical path despite the untold misunderstanding, vilification and demonization we have endured from across the political divide."

"Here in Zimbabwe we had our near-bank failures a few years ago and we responded by providing the affected Banks with the Troubled Bank Fund (TBF) for which we were heavily criticized even by some multi-lateral institutions who today are silent when the Central Banks of UK and USA are going the same way and doing the same thing under very similar circumstances thereby continuing the unfortunate hypocrisy that what’s good for goose is not good for the gander."

"Our economy is and has been in trouble for over ten years and our extraordinary interventions by whatever name have helped to keep the wheels of this economy moving."

"Of course, in the short-term such interventions are without doubt inflationary but in the medium to long-term they trigger and propel economic growth and development that everyone craves for."

For those of you not in tune with the modern economic collapse of Zimbabwe, inflation is a big problem over there. Well it's more than a problem so much as the currency is worthless with the rate inflation running in the millions. As the currency has no stability the economy can't function, as prices can't find a stabilisation point, subsequently businesses can't invest as trying to predict future costs is impossible. Add to that disastrous policies such as price controls and you have a recipe for product shortages as retailers actually loose money by trying to sell the products below market value.

This rate of inflation did not happen over night. It happened after years of mismanaged fiscal and monetary policy. Robert Mugabe and his Kleptocratic regime ran up government debts that could not be paid, thus resulting in the use of a printing press to pay the bills.

As we can see in the chart below inflation was in its infancy less than 10 years ago. When the government began printing money to try pay their bills and implemented a lot of disastrous policies inflation began to take off. The problem with inflation, is once it has emerged its very hard to contain, as prices rise, people demand more pay which puts further strains on the governments costs, so they have to print more money, as the vicious cycle continues. Capital Investment collapses as the currency has no stability, in turn a flight of foreign capital ensues.



In the above graph, Inflation also drops briefly as the government implement a host of policies that stifle markets forces such as pricing by having "Price Controls". Of course the deflation effect is short lived as market forces should never be distorted by governments and bureaucratic institutions. From 2005 inflation exploded and now stands in the millions. In the short time of writing this article inflation has probably increased in a magnitude of 10's.

The reason the UK had such a bad recession in the early eighties was not due to Thatcherism, as many populist anti establishment figures proclaimed at the time such as Ben Elton in the Young Ones. It was due to the inflationist policies that were perpetrated by the Labour government in the seventies, as they spent money they didn't have and funded the difference with inflation. Thatcher came to power and inflation was rampant, as she begun to implement her monetarist policies to tame inflation, in effect contracting the money supply. As painful as this was and as high as unemployment became, it was completely necessary as the economy could not progress until currency stabilisation had been achieved. I'm not a Thatcher fan, it was her policies after this that created the divisive nation we now live in and decimated communities, but returning Britain to a more stable footing allowed the eighties boom, and the subsequent boom we have just been through.

Again, just like the seventies, the UK has begun tampering with market forces and running up deficits they can not pay, trying to inflate their way out of the current credit collapse. Like any previous government that has tried this, it will fail in disaster. Don't be fooled by talk of deflation. When you look at the underlying economic picture it is inflation we will get. It might not be next year or in two years, but it will happen at some point in the future and with it the devastating effects that it causes. As one of the quotes mentions above "keep the wheels of the economy moving" has an eerie ring to it, like a statement from Gordon Brown at the present time. We have been told at all costs we must keep the economy moving. Even if it leads to even worse economic hardship for the medium to long term.