The blame for the downgrading of the UK's triple-A credit rating by Moody's can be laid squarely at the door of the government.
Last night leading credit ratings agency Moody’s downgraded the UK economy from AAA to Aa1.
The reasons could not have been more clear; the coalition’s ‘significant policy commitment to austerity‘ was a ‘drag‘ on the economy.
Moody’s managing director Bart Oosterveld added that:
“There is a risk, given the pace of deficit and debt reduction, that the government may not be able to reverse the debt-to-GDP trajectory before the next economic downturn happens.”
For the last 3 years the UK has been very lucky, with the financial markets, the Euro crisis and the US political instability all boosting the perception that the UK is the least ‘ugly’ country in Europe for investors.
Being a large economy with its own independent bank made the UK a safe haven compared to the Eurozone in particular. The great arrogance was this government’s belief that it was the government’s austerity policy that was producing this honeymoon period with the markets.
It wasn’t, and now we will see how wrong they were.
Almost a year ago, writing here, I contrasted the actions of the US government who, through stimulus and investment, had produced “a tangible bridge back from the abyss allowing the private sector to motor back to strong growth”.
At the same time the UK had its “bridge kicked away by an ideologically-driven assault on government by the Conservative-led coalition just when it was needed most”.
The last three years were an opportunity for the UK government to step up to the plate and help businesses. It chose not to do that.
Let us compare GDP growth from 2010 to 2012 in the UK with that of other countries. Sweden, another modern economy with a similar relationship to Europe? 11.6% growth; The embattled politically-
The mismanagement of the UK economy, driven by an ahistorical economic philosophy – try to name another time in modern history when an austerity-driven government has brought an economy out of recession – will in time ensure that this administration is seen as the most economically incompetent UK government in modern times.
For now, we can only note the missed opportunity of the past three years.
So what will the future bring?
Usually there would be a run on government bonds, but with the flood of cash to bonds from Quantitative Easing (QE), this is unlikely to happen. The currency markets are where the action is and the pound will continue, as it already has, to fall.
The real effect is that the UK’s hands are now economically tied.
Was it by chance that three days ago the Bank of England minutes showed that Sir Melvyn King was out-voted on expanding QE further: was his vote a warning? The Bank of England will not dare now push back on QE.
The great fear is inflation accompanying flat growth and again we have become powerless: would the Bank of England be brave enough to raise interest rates to combat inflation when the economy is flat-lining?
This is perhaps the saddest fact of all; we had 3 years to repair the house, fix the walls and stop the roof leaking. Instead we were busy ripping up the floorboards and tearing the plaster away.
What this government’s economic vandalism has left us with is a house that is unprotected against any future economic storm.
26 Responses to “Three years of economic vandalism that have left the UK open to this triple-A debacle”
LB
Because the ONS is offsetting the debts against a small holding of Gilts.
You can’t make an asset by writing an IOU to yourself.
On the mortgage you are not broke. You have a contract with the lender, and the lender cannot call the loan, making you bankrupt, so long as you meet the cashflow payments.
To be bankrupt, there are two conditions.
1. Assets < liabilities, and no foreseeable chance of a recovery
2. Inability to meet cashflow requirements.
Invariably, its the second that sends people and organisations to the wall. However, you can meet 1, but fail 2, and hence you still go to the wall.
So which assets does it own? Now look at the bankruptcy tests.
Nuclear submarines. Assets yes. Can you sell them to generate money to pay pensions? To whom if the answer is yes. They are liabilities, spending. Same with hospitals. To whom are you going to sell. What then for the NHS? Rent them back. Just spending at the end.
BT's pension funds are reported on a mark to market basis. They can't make the numbers up, and they have to report them. Assets are known on a daily basis, and valued daily. Liabilities are bit more woolly, but again there are standard accounting practices to report them. So just as a slight matter of accuracy, the debts aren't being reduced, they are going up. It's that they are increasing assets by paying more in. However, the difference is still negative. Assets are less than liabilities, and the state has guaranteed that for no premiums.
NI from 16? Well 18 now. Makes the deal even worse. Contribute for more than 40 years and you would have got an even bigger return in the last few years, but less to spend it over so an even bigger income.
e.g For anyone who says that the FTSE is risky needs to compare the FTSE with NI going into that with what the state gives for its NI. You would be horrified.
At the end of the day, the government gives lip service and says, yes we will use GAAP. Then for the big debts says, no we won't. There's less than 50% chance of paying the pensions so we won't put it on the books.
So you and I are being defrauded. You might be able to cope. I might be able to cope. But look at the news today about the lack of savings. Most people are going to be absolutely screwed. That's immoral and evil