Vince Cable,
the UK’s “Business Secretary”, is currently in the lime light because he sold
off (i.e. privatised) the postal
system, Royal Mail at much less than market value.
But there is a
more serious and damaging policy he has pursued for a year or two, namely
opposing improvements in bank capital
ratios, with a view to encouraging more private bank lending: i.e. boosting the
already elevated levels of private debt. Now those elevated levels of private
debt were one of the main factors behind the crunch!
It really is
jaw dropping: we had one of the worst crashes since 1929 about five years ago: caused
by irresponsible and excessive bank lending and inadequate capital buffers. And
that was followed by about four years of excess unemployment. And what does the
UK’s “Business Secretary” want to do? See a repeat of the whole charade in five
or ten years’ time!
Of course the
reasons he opposes capital ratio improvements are obvious. There are three
reasons as follows.
1.
Corruption.
Politicians
and political parties the world over receive millions from banksters, designed
amongst other things to thwart better bank regulation. Or as Senator Dick Durbin put it, “Banks are
still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill . . . . . and frankly they own
the place”.
2. Ignorance.
Politicians
often think that because shareholders want a higher return on their money than
depositors or bondholders, that therefor increasing capital ratios increases
the cost of funding banks. And banksters encourage politicians in that belief.
However, as Messers Miller and Modigliani
explained, there is a very simple reason for thinking that bank funding costs
do not change much when capital ratios change.
And it’s not
just me that claims bankers are into the above intellectual dishonesty, i.e.
that they’re a bunch of liars. Robert Jenkins, member of the Financial Policy
Committee described banks’ opposition to improved capital ratios as “intellectually
dishonest”. (That was the front page leading story in the Financial Times,
incidentally.)
Increased
bank charges due to the removal of bank subsidies are OK.
There is
however ONE REASON why bank costs (and hence charges made to their customers)
would rise. But it’s an entirely acceptable reason, and as follows.
Grossly
inadequate capital ratios are risky, and who carries that risk? Well the
taxpayer carries a fair chunk of it: witness the hundreds of billions of
taxpayers’ money used to bail out banks. So… if capital ratios are increased,
that effectively means a reduced subsidy for banks. Thus bank costs and charges
rise a bit.
But subsidies
ARE NOT JUSTIFIED, unless someone can produce a very good social reason for a
subsidy. Indeed, improved capital ratios would, as Vince Cable claims, reduce
bank lending. But that would not reduce GDP. That is, assuming the latter
standard piece of economics is correct (i.e. that subsidies misallocate
resources), then improved capital ratios would actually INCREASE GDP.
Put that
another way, if banks are subsidised, then interest charged to borrower /
investors will be artificially low: i.e. below optimum. So…. remove the
subsidy, an interest charged will be optimum, or at least nearer the optimum.
3. The belief
that only private banks can create credit/money.
Vince Cable
almost certainly doesn’t understand that the economy can be stimulated simply
by creating and net spending more base money (i.e. CENTRAL BANK created money). By “net spending” I mean government
spending net of tax collected. I.e. those on the political left would want more
government spending, while those on the right would want less tax, so the term
“net spending” covers both what a left of centre government would want to do
and ditto for a right of centre government.
In other
words, Cable thinks that stimulus can only come from private banks – i.e. from
more private debt.
The reality of
course, as Keynes pointed out, is that stimulus can be implemented simply by
printing and net spending more central bank created money into the economy.
That “Keynsian” point is also made in this Positive Money
item.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a comment.