Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: D-word slip makes Prime Minister an unlikely prophet

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 February 2009
'WE SHOULD agree as a world on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of r… depression." Thus spake Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday, creating shock waves as far afield as Washington ("He said the D-word!").
A damage limitation exercise was instantly launched from No 10, the modern, mass-media equivalent of an erratum slip in a book: for 'depression' read 'recession'.

When it comes to this kind of stumble-mumble, Gordon has previous. Remember his not
orious verbal slip last December when he remarked, a trifle hubristically, "we not only saved the world…" It was immediately explained that, instead of "world", he had meant to say "banks".

Thanks to his programme of creeping nationalisation, Brown is now more of a banker than a prime minister. If recession is indeed deepening into depression, as his Freudian slip suggested, then nobody on this side of the Atlantic bears more responsibility than Brown. His cack-handed bailout of the banks only assumes quasi-sane proportions when measured against Barack Obama's even more ambitious package of toxicity.

The Brown/Obama narrative might succinctly be characterised as How to Turn a Recession into a Depression. Just how far the British and world economies will plunge by the end of this "downturn" is difficult to foresee, but the clever money has to be on the most pessimistic prognosis. At the moment, technically, we are in a recession. In the third quarter of 2008 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 0.6% and in the fourth quarter by 1.5%, thus fulfilling the textbook requirement of two successive quarters of declining GDP that defines a recession.

This definition excludes other significant factors such as the unemployment rate and consumer confidence. The average recession lasts for a year, which is a luxury we shall not enjoy this time: this one will run and run. Optimists, however, seize on the fact that we are not (pace Gordon Brown) in a depression. For that, real GDP would have to decline by 10%. Only Finland and Indonesia have recently experienced full-blooded depression.

The British Chambers of Commerce is currently forecasting a 2.9% decline in GDP over 2008-2009, with unemployment rising to 3.1 million, or 10% of the workforce, over two years. So, a serious recession is expected, but not a depression. That, at any rate, is what the rulebook says, but it is arguable there are no rules any more: Gordon and Barack just tore them up.

The weasel word 'stimulus' denotes an irredeemably Keynesian mentality. What it means is that the malady – a bad recession we could just about have weathered – will be fatally aggravated by the cure that quacks have prescribed. Economic history never repeats itself; but it does have broad lessons. Of these the most instructive is that of the United States in the 1930s.

As with today's crisis, in 1929 it began with a collapse on Wall Street. The difference was that 1929 was a genuinely capitalist crisis, whereas 2008 was provoked by politically motivated intervention in the housing market by the Clinton administration. What followed 1929 was the New Deal, which exacerbated and prolonged the emergency. America's industrial collapse did not occur in 1929 but in 1937, when the New Deal was in its fifth year. Barack Obama has not learned that lesson. If he breaks the back of the US economy, we shall catch more than a cold in this country.

Yes, the bankers have behaved appallingly. But who permitted them to do so? The politicians who straitjacketed small businesses with endless regulation while exempting the financial institutions from what was really needed: not nanny-state regulation but expert supervision. Always it is the politicians who do the real harm – our last recession was caused by our joining the ludicrous Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Citizens, we are told, have been very naughty. In 2008 personal debt in the UK rose by 7.3% on the previous year, to £1.44 trillion. But why did normally responsible people feel the need to borrow? Because Brown had confiscated penal amounts of their earnings in taxation. Having filled the Treasury's coffers, they then resorted to the banks to replenish their wallets, to sustain the living standards they had a right to expect in return for their labours, had they not been mugged by the state.

If everything goes belly-up on both sides of the Atlantic, it will be the fault of Brown and Obama, with their delusions that more indebtedness can produce solvency, that public works programmes stimulate economies and that the state is a better steward of people's wealth than those who have earned it. Those are the fatal illusions that may lead us into a depression.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

08/02/2009 00:20:05
I see Warner, like many other on the right, are clinging to the delusion that none of the economic chaos we are facing is any of their fault.
To blame the Clinton administration for the current problems ignores the rather obvious fact that George Bush has been in power for 8 years-long enough you might have though to have corrected any 'mistakes' Clinton might have made.

On this side of the Atlantic meanwhile, we may have a nominally 'leftwing' government, but it has aggressively pursued the economic policies advocated by the right wing: deregulation and laissez-faire capitalism.

whilst those on the right rush to escape any blame for the ideologies they have advocated, I prefer to listen to those commentators, of whichever political persuasion, who are prepared to look at the issue with an open mind, and aren't afraid to reach conclusions even if they themselves find them uncomfortable.
2

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/02/2009 01:16:54
1 Come on Newton, Gerald is a good laugh, he never fails to raise a chuckle. His quaint belief that the Labour Party are left wing, and that this is all Bill Clinton's fault, brings some light relief in a very dark hour.

I believe we managed to win WW2 in six years, but apparently 8 years wasn't long enough for Bush to undo Clinton's dastardly deeds.

The right-wing have ALWAYS advocated de-regulation, laissez faire capitalism, and greed.

But according to Gerry, that has nothing to do with the current predicament:-)
3

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/02/2009 01:23:53
1, come on Newton, Gerald provides the comic entertainment. His quaint belief that Labour are left wing and this is all Clinton's fault never fails to make me chuckle. We managed to win WW2 in six years, but apparently 8 years was not long enough for Bush (bless) to un-do Clinton's dastardly deeds.

The right-wing have always advocated de-regulation, laissez faire capitalism, the market, and greed. That, however, according to Gerald, has nothing to do with the current predicament.

It's just those pesky socialists, as usual :-)
4

Observer,,

08/02/2009 01:24:24
Oh dear sorry for double post ! Site is being a bit weird....
5

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 08/02/2009 11:48:35
Gerald Warner said: "The difference was that 1929 was a genuinely capitalist crisis, whereas 2008 was provoked by politically motivated intervention in the housing market by the Clinton administration."

As a longtime bank employee, I can say with complete confidence: what nonsense. US bankers were not "forced" into sub-prime lending; they did so willingly for commercial reasons (high profit margins and apparently ever-rising collateral if the loans went bad).

Also, contrary to rightwing mythology, US sub-prime lending was just a fraction of the total amount of lending. The buoyant US real estate market lulled bankers into a false sense of security in respect of "normal" borrowers too.

Other private sector agents who behaved irresponsibly included unscrupulous mortgage brokers, individuals borrowing beyond their means, and ratings agencies who colluded in the mislabelling of sub-prime debt, enabling the toxicity to spread throughout the world.
CDOs and other apparently risk-proof investment vehicles also arose as a consequence of the low interest rate environment that cut the legs from under "bread and butter" traditional banking activities (saving and lending).

Government was at fault merely because they took their eye off the ball and naively gave the private sector what they wanted: "light-touch regulation". Corporate lawyers, hired by the financial sector, bullied and threatened regulators with "career suicide" and public ridicule, and / or tempted the best regulators to jump ship.

That it how it works in the real world.
6

Itchy,

08/02/2009 12:53:16
#1 "On this side of the Atlantic meanwhile, we may have a nominally 'leftwing' government, but it has aggressively pursued the economic policies advocated by the right wing: deregulation and laissez-faire capitalism."

This is both factually wrong and economically illiterate.

Taxer Brown has done nothing but tax us greedily, strangle the economy with regulation and overspend recklessly.

He has also presided over an old-fashioned credit expansion which has led to boom and bust and he is following it by inflating the currency.

In short, it is INTERVENTIONISM which has caused the curret mess and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

7

Itchy,

Lochgelly 08/02/2009 13:02:46
#3 More illiteracy. George W Bush is not an advocate of laissez-faire and deregulation.

He hugely expanded the role of the state in America with his huge government deficit spending, his protectionism, his introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley law and he did not undo Bill Clinton's intervention in the mortgage market.

#5 "Government was at fault merely because they took their eye off the ball and naively gave the private sector what they wanted: "light-touch regulation"."

You are a proven liar. Light-touch regulation, my jacksie.
8

Teemackell the Scribe,

08/02/2009 14:13:29
Funny old world. You save it by plunging it into a depression.
9

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/02/2009 14:31:26
"Why did normally responsible people feel the need to borrow? Because Brown had confiscated penal amounts of their earnings in taxation. Having filled the Treasury's coffers they(responsible people?) then resorted to the banks to replenish their wallets to sustain their living standards..........?"

Good try! Nobody dragged these "reponsible people" kicking and screaming to the banks and building societies to obtain a larger overdraft, remortgage their homes, release equity in their inflated properties, or borrow unnecessarily excessive amounts of money!

During a 10 year period when inflation was historically low, and wages were historically high,
these "responsible people" were not overtaxed as the author disingenuously claims, just reckless!

These "responsible people" were like ostriches and stuck their heads in the ground, and through pure and simply greed, could not get enough materialism in their lives in the form of larger cars, larger houses, more foreign holidays, knowing full well that it was completely unsustainable.

Never mind we can always blame the politicians, the bankers, the car salesman, the wife, or even the weather. However, these "responsible people" would never think of blaming themselves for their utter stupidity!
10

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

08/02/2009 20:08:03
#6 Itchy-you are a nutball. The kind of system you want is total anarchy and everyone just doing whatever they hell they want.
We all know how that would end up-the moment you yourself get shafted you'll be screaming for the authorities to help you.
11

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 08/02/2009 21:14:56
# 7 Itchy said:

"You are a proven liar. Light-touch regulation, my jacksie."

I can't comment on your jacksie but "light touch regulation" was a fact of life during the boom years in the City and Wall Street. Maybe you've worked in banking these last 20-odd years, as I have, including a long spell in the City (in which case you must have had your eyes and ears closed)! However, I suspect, from the vagueness of your comments on this and other threads (and your cut-and-paste repetition of phraseology viewable on just about any rightwing website) is that you're merely an over-excitable type, probably not that grown-up in years, and certainly not mature enough to handle opinion that differs from yours.

It must be tough being a neocon in Lochgelly!
12

Itchy,

08/02/2009 23:54:47
#10 your statement is just a recycling of Marx's anarchy of production fallacy.

And why would I get shafted? As opposed to the government shafting me?

#11 you have no grasp of reality or economic theory or economic facts.

#9 Taxer Brown has done eveything he can to discourage saving and everything he can to encourage spending. And it is he who has inflated the currency and is continuing to do so.

And you are an opne Marxist who tries to patronize his way out of trouble.
13

Itchy,

08/02/2009 23:55:51
#11 And I'm not a neocon. Neocons are anticapitalist and you are so thick that you think George W Bush is a supporter of capitalism.
14

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 09/02/2009 22:42:34
# 13 Itchy said: "I'm not a neocon. Neocons are anticapitalist and you are so thick that you think George W Bush is a supporter of capitalism."

Presumably you're referring to Bush's bailouts (eg directing taxpayers' funds to Wall Street banks). It is indeed a change of direction but let's face it, I think you'll have a hard job persuading anyone that George W Bush is a socialist at heart.

Neocons anti-capitalist? Presumably that means some of them hold views more leftwing than your own. Heigh-ho, what a surprise; who doesn't?

I think you will find that most neocons are generally supportive of free markets. Otherwise, let's have a few examples of, er, leftwing neocons.

Back to basics. To have a proper debate, you need to address the points raised by your opponents, rather than scattergun personal abuse (which is water off a duck's back, by the way).

Otherwise you come across as a crazy, humourless person. "Shafted" ..... "jacksie"....."proven liar"..... "thick".....

You're taking this all a wee bit too seriously, no?

With that in mind, care to explain why you think "light-touch regulation" didn't exist? Do you believe (like G Warner) that it was the Clintons / Gordon Brown who "forced" those banks to leverage their balance sheets by 20 or 30 times?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.