
Millions of mortgage holders are now back in what has become familiar territory over the past few months. It’s called The Land of Wait and See. Wait to see if your mortgage is going to be cut. Wait to see if you’re among the lucky ones whose lenders will
pass on the cuts either in part or – if you’re very fortunate – in full.
Theoretically the lucky ones who see a drop in their mortgage payments will have a little more money to spend. This will benefit the economy. And pigs will fly.
In reality if the average mortgage holder is a few quid better off if he’s got half a brain he’ll hang on to it rather than going out and buying stuff he doesn’t need.
He’s going to be worried about unemployment, about mortgage rates shooting up again, about the children’s school fees, about repayments on the car, or the roof blowing off, about something dreadful happening that he can’t quite put his finger on.
He might not be able to describe what horror it is but he thinks that some dreadful scenario is just around the corner and he wants to be ready for it with a little nest egg.
He won’t put in a bank because the interest rates have become a very bad joke for savers. So he’ll probably put it under the mattress.
Even if he finds a bank that paid a decent rate of interest to savers – which he won’t –but let’s just suppose for a moment – he’d still prefer to have it under the bed because he thinks that’s safer than sticking it in a bank.
Nobody, today, trusts banks or bankers. It’s as simple as that. And that reaction, which is understandable after recent events, contributes to a damaging lack of confidence which has permeated the economy from top to bottom.
There’s very little evidence that cutting a measly half point off the interest rates will do much to revive the economy. Revive is probably the wrong word. Resuscitation is more appropriate.
The shrinking economy appears to have hardly responded to rates being slashed from 4.5 per cent to 2 per cent in the last eight weeks. So what difference will a half point make?
A half point drop is likely to have the same effect as chopping VAT by 2.5 per cent, which, for anybody who cares to remember, was also part of the emergency resuscitation package. And what has been the effect of pruning VAT? Very little.
The problem remains two-fold: a lack of credit and a lack of confidence. Out of those the lack of credit – of lending – is probably the most important. If that could be sorted then confidence would begin to seep back to both consumers and the business fraternity.
Businesses desperately need to borrow money to keep going. House buyers need to borrow money to buy houses. But the banks are saying that they too have a big credit problem. And even a half point cut will again worsen the position for savers.
One wonders why rates were not cut more drastically. Perhaps it’s because the Bank of England feels that it will soon have nothing left to offer. After all, if and when rates get down to zero – and still the patient refuses to be resuscitated – what happens then? What else can Brown and Darling chuck in to kick the old girl into life?
There’s no easy to answer. One effect of dropping rates has been a big dip in sterling which is now close to parity with the Euro. Don’t let’s even talk about the dollar. A sliding pound is good news for UK exporters. But if sterling started to really dive all Hell could break loose.
There’s only really one answer. And as any economist will tell you .. it doesn’t come with a guarantee. And what is it? To pump in yet more money. On the other side of the pond Obama is talking colossal amounts of money being injected into the US economy. Something like 6 per cent of the entire economic output.
The UK has so far put in about two per cent of the UK economic output. That’s hefty. But not enough. So the government faces another cleft stick. It’s damned if it does. And damned if it doesn’t.
It’s already pumped in £50 billion of taxpayers money. And it doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect. So it can walk away and say it’s not working and, effectively, write it off. Or it can say in for a penny in for a pound. Or in £50bn in for £100 bn. It’s like the gambler who says it’ll all work out if he has just one more bet.
There are other instruments which could be brought into play. The state sector is still out of control. Public spending could be slashed. The number of non-jobs in the state sector could be cut. Gold plated pensions for state employees must be stopped. Bodies like the Health and Safety executive and myriad quangos could be chopped.
The abolition of HIPS – which if you ask any property professional is a fiasco and has acted as a severe break on property – should happen now without further dithering.
And it’s not just the state sector. If reports continue about bonuses and astonishing perks sill being paid to people in the financial sector – especially to bankers who now face such approbrium – then the government will come under real pressure from an electorate, from the tax payer, fed up to the back teeth which what is perceived as a two-tier society in which the poorer half has to bail out and prop up the richer half.
Income tax could be cut – national insurance must be closely monitored – and there could be merit in the notion of the government guaranteeing bank lending. Insufficient has been done to help first time buyers. And with the looming accommodation problem the government must do more to encourage buy to let landlords. The collapse in the building and construction sector and the way housing targets have been missed means that the health of the rental sector is crucial.
The cry is now loud that the type of half-nationalisation of the banking sector that has taken place so far is too prissy - and that total state control should be effected if that is the only way of getting the lenders to begin lending again.
A Marxist style takeover of banks and lending houses would include the seizure of assets and the abolition of the boards and private shareholders with no compensation.
If one could remove profits and the dividends – and if one could inculcate the financial sector with the idea that the national interest is of a greater importance than the well being of shareholders and the board – then such an idea would have populist appeal.
One would have to have highly competent people running a state-run banking system. It would not have to be allowed to fall into the hands of politicos and committees and some of the brain-dead dolts who held high office in nationalised industries in the past.
But it is so radical a step, somehow so un-British, that it would be a final option and a strategy about which there would have to be considerable caution. The reputation of the banking and financial institutions, however, has been so damaged and is now at such a low ebb that the government might feel this is the time to take such action.
Brown’s administration is, after all, supposedly a Labour government and such thinking would chime well with many of its traditional stalwarts and, perhaps, to s wider electorate disenchanted with the caprice and volatility of the enterprise economy. Milton Friedman-Margaret Thatcher free market economics have been shown to be dangerously flawed.
This is another unexpected effect of the Crash. Revolutionary ideas – once restricted to the ultra Left – are now part of mainstream thinking. It demonstrates how the world has changed. Who would have thought that less than a year ago that a Bush administration would have bailed out its economy – or that Britain’s bankers and lenders would be subject to such levels of government intervention? Can 2009 hold anymore shocks than those which were produced by the financial tsunami of 2008?