Buddy, can you spare a dime, er, a few squillion dimes, actually?

Back in the day, the early '80s, actually, when 'that woman' was starting her 'reign', I became interested in economics - I know, I know, sad but thus it was.  Pretty soon I was into Hayek, Keynes, Rawls, Landes, Gilder, Friedman et al.  It was, at best, a rough and ready education because more frequently than I am prepared to admit, I didn't fully understand all the nuances of a 'science'(?) in which there seemed to be very few hard and fast rules.  The notion that 'it all depends ...' seemed pre-eminent.  Nevertheless, on the whole, taken in the round and by and large, I preferred the notion of 'free' markets to government-controlled markets.

But today, some 40 years later, the picture has become more than somewhat blurred.  What system of economics do we have today?  The answer appears to be as many systems as there are nations although, if you look closely there is not a lot of difference between them.  The rise and rise of mega-global businesses have placed mere governments in subsidiary roles.  "Do it our way," whisper the mega-zillionaires from whatever electronic platform they are hiding in, and governments tremble.

Even so, they may be 'masters of the universe', as they run rings round mere politicians, but they seem totally unable to control the ever-rising tsunami that will eventually swamp the lot of them - and us, too, actually!  I refer to the astronomical levels of debt which, for the moment, broods like a dark cloud on the far horizon of a Summer's day.  Everybody - and I do mean everybody bar perhaps a few Kalahari bushmen - owes everybody else!  Thus, no-one, it seems to me, actually owns anything.  You might think that someone like me who owns the freehold of my house really does 'own' something tangible.  However, if when the tsunami of debt swamps the world then there will be nobody willing or able to buy my freehold which will then become worthless.

Now, my fellow Brits, just ask yourself this, do you think that our new Chancellor of the Exchequer, 'Spreadsheet Phil', ever thinks of this?  Or you, my American buddies, do you comfort yourselves with the thought that your new president has the whole thing under control?   Hmnnn, thought not!

 

Comments

[Cuffleyburgers]

Duffers - the model these days seems to be a sort of corporatism in which, especially in the case of banks, losses are socialised and profits are guaranteed by central bank meddling.

Governments all over the world as you say are owned by vast corporations who benefit from the advantages of being too big to be allowed to fail, as a result of which the core mechanism of true free market capitalism is disactivated.

Competition is frowned upon. Lip service is paid but in reality, true innovation is in many spheres of the economy, harmonised out of existence.

Despite high taxes everywhere, governments in all countries extra a very minor few, still manage to spend more than they take in, a phenomenon that is driving the global debt monster via quantitive easing and historically low interest rates. But the vast government intervention in the economy (both by tax/spend and unbelievably damaging regulation, esp. environmental bollocks) is holding down productivity growth and as a result the quicksand is claiming ever more.

The dominant meme on social media is that government intervention is a good and wholesome thing as a result nobody under the age of 25 can possibly understand the nature of the problem or the necessary solutions.

Anybody older than 25 who gets their news from the BBC is in much the same boat.

There's a few dozen of us who read your blog and a few hundred on Tim Worstall and others, and therefore do understand the problem and can guess the necessary solutions.

But basically we are massively outnumbered.

A self governing England is probably one of the few countries in the world where there is a possibility of a majority voting for less suicidal policies, but with the government focused to the exclusion of all else on Brexit (fair enough actually) and on shooting itself in the foot with the budget (less admirable) we won't see any improvement for a few years yet.

Living in Italy, as I do, I'm stocking up on ammo and tinned food!

And only half joking.

[Bob]

There has never been a "free" market. It's a sell word for people who see economics as a partisan exercise, David, and you probably know more than Trump.

[TheBigHenry]

I realize that "squillion" means a very large (though unspecified) number. But if you're like me, you might prefer specificity. Hence, I offer the following alternatives for larger than a trillion: quadrillion; quintillion; sextillion (if you like titillation); septillion; octillion; nonillion; and decillion. There are even larger named numbers, but these should suffice for a couple of years.

[Michael F Adams]

TBH, Optimist!

[Cuffleyburgers]

Bob it's only idiots on the left who regard economics as a zero sum game or partisan exercise if you will.

Free markets are anything but zero sum, that is how they enable wealth generation and the entire scope of human history has shown that the nearer you approximate free markets the more and faster wealth is generated and the opposite is equally true.

Absolutely free markets have never existed and I would certainly agree that a very limited amount of government interference is desirable such as to prevent monopolies, punish fraud, enforce a framework for managing bankruptcy and law enforcement generally, but the kind io spending we se nowadays can never be justified.

The fact that in practice they cannot exist doesn't mean they shouldn't act as a lode star for the desired direction of travel to maximise human happiness

But I forgot, that has never been an important consideration for the left, has it?

[David Duff]

Henry, you are obviously a maths swot of the first order - but where's the poetry? 'Squillion' is just so right, it expresses the idea of a monumentally big number even if it is without exactitude! Sorry, I failed all maths exams!

[Bob]

Cuffleyburgers, I can't answer for "the left", but agree only idiots regard economics as a zero sum game or partisan exercise. They exist all over the political spectrum.

[TheBigHenry]

Michael,

I have always been a pessimist; "..., but these should suffice for a couple of years" was tongue-in-cheek :)

David,

Poetry, schmoetry. I'm a physicist. We have no time for poetry :)

[Peter Whale]

Hi Duffers just like your mate Will you turn everything into entertainment and rightly so, for that is all that this great stage offers. I have great fun out of world events seen through others mental dexterity.long may it continue "bottoms up".

[David Duff]

Cheers, Peter, er, and make mine a double, there's a good chap!

[Whitewall]

I can't remember the quote but it goes like--nations are destroyed by debt equally as much as by the sword. All of our "budgets" are phony as almost all are based on fiat currency- paper. The gold standard of more than a century ago was the last time real money was used. That standard took a hit in 1913 and was finished off in 1971. The future will be determined by how well humans cope when the "great write off" comes.