Economic Growth

As the fissure between Keynesians and Monetarists opens, while recovery stutters uncertainly across the West, it becomes clear that they talk of two economies. One is based on borrowing driving consumption and asset inflation. The other is based on saving and enterprise driving the creation of tangible wealth. The former is in trouble, the latter is doing rather well.

This blog has recently been proclaiming that bad news is good. Falling house prices, negative lending or, as I prefer, net saving, tougher requirements demanded of borrowers, narrowing of the trade gap, improved industrial performance, all point to the re-balancing of the economy to provide a more certain route to future prosperity.

Against this a worried population braces itself for major job losses in the public sector, restricted income for those who remain, cuts in public services, reforms in welfare meaning fewer will be entitled and then perhaps to less, against a refrain from the left about a double dip recession. 

There is, in fact, no such thing as a double dip recession. What there is, and we do not want it, is an illusion of recovery bought with borrowed money, which is not sustainable without constant stoking, leading to crippling sovereign and personal debt. In the end the cost of the debt absorbs the majority of the output of both personal and national effort.

There may, however, be a compromise. I am not at all sure we should aim to sell the national stake in RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock. We already have retained the bad bits of Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock. Because these funds are closed and running off, they are now showing a profit. There is a powerful case for suggesting that the taxpayer should retain a competitive presence in retail banking to sponsor new enterprise loans, said to be so scarce, by allowing these banks to operate at lower capital ratios than independent competitors. In the last resort they are protected because of the Government’s shareholding.

The so called investment arms would have to be cut adrift to sink or swim and the independents would be told that if they required rescue in future their invest arms would be allowed to go bust, their shareholders would be wiped out and their retail networks would be absorbed into the state owned banks to secure ordinary depositors. This form of regulation, which is light on rules but heavy on consequences, would allow a little extra flexibility to nurture recovery, without damaging the re-balancing of the economy.

I commend it for consideration.