The British Office of National Statistics released the data – Gross Domestic Product Preliminary Estimate, Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2015 – yesterday, which should tell the British voters that the Conservative government has failed. There is no political spin that is capable of changing that conclusion. With a general election next week in Britain, the real GDP figures (and related data – productivity, real wages, per capita income etc) should spell the end of the Conservatives. Especially, given their plans for the next few years. But then the British people have as an alternative the Labour Party which has proposed more or less the same thing except they will be “fairer”. Pigs might fly! Britain is continuing to demonstrate that fiscal austerity is bad for economic growth and that on-going deficits are good.

You may not remember the prediction by the American Arthur Laffer in his Wall Street Journal Op Ed (June 11, 2009) – Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates. As the US government deficit rose to meet the challenges of the spending collapse and the US Federal Reserve Bank’s balance sheet shot up as it built up bank reserves, he predicted “dire consequences … rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four years or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s”. You may have forgotten that prediction because it was in a sea of similar nonsensical claims by mainstream economists locked in a sort of mass hysteria and only their erroneous textbooks to give them guidance. It is 2015, nearly six years after Laffer humiliated himself in that Op Ed. Inflation is low and falling generally. Interest rates remain very, very low (note his use of “much, much” to give his prediction some gravity). Gravity forces things to crash! But the doomsayers have learned very little it seems.

I am always amused when conservative politicians make claims like they created so many thousands or millions of jobs while in government. Typically, in Opposition they will claim that governments do not create any jobs, which justifies them introducing pro-business policies and imposing austerity. That ‘free market’ position soon changes when they are trying to take credit for growth. With an election in the offing in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is demonstrating one of these shifts in causality. He told the BBC in an interview (March 30, 2015) – Election 2015: Cameron pledges ‘1,000 jobs a day’ if re-elected – that his government had “created a thousand jobs a day” and would continue to do so if re-elected. But there is clearly more to this claim that a 1000 net jobs per day.

The British Chancellor George Osborne told the British people during his fiscal presentation yesterday that the “The sun is starting to shine – and we are fixing the roof”, which was code for the age of austerity is over. The problem with that narrative is that the sun over Britain is pretty weak, has been shining since 2012 when the British government deferred its austerity push when the nascent economic recovery it inherited tanked after its first fiscal exercise in June 2010. The strategy then was clear – they kept the fiscal deficit at relatively high levels (even if some of the shifting of expenditures etc cause inequities and undermines the prosperity of certain cohorts). Those deficits have supported growth over the last several years. But growth has also come from the stimulus the government gave to the housing sector (not the construction of houses but the churning of existing stock) in the 2012 and 2013 Fiscal Statements (aka the ‘Budget’). That growth strategy is ephemeral because the household sector can only absorb so much extra debt given its already highly indebted state. Overall, the fiscal narrative in Britain put out by the Conservatives is a lie. They have not created a nation of “Makers” and growth has not come from austerity. If you want to see what austerity does just look across the Channel to Italy, France, and, of course Greece. The UK has not demonstrated that austerity is a stimulus to growth.

Not much has really changed in Capitalism despite massive changes in technology, market reach, etc. The underlying behaviour is stable – chicanery, bleeding the state for all the advantages that capital can gain while berating workers (unions) and welfare recipients, rigging financial, share and product markets, lying about state finances to gain more access to public handouts, lobbying government to socialise risk and privatise profit, paying off politicians to engage in corrupt behaviour where conflicts of interest dominate, and more. I was reading about the famous – South Sea Company – today, which was a public-private partnership that began life in 1711. It was a total scam and had all of the elements noted above. Its collapse in 1720 on the back of corrupt and incompetent behaviour (GFC anyone?) caused one hell of a recession in the UK. The only thing it managed to do in any significant volume with its trade monopoly between the UK and South America was to buy and sell slaves and, even then, it messed that up financially – quite aside from the repugnance of the venture itself. Interestingly, its collapse led to the rise of the, then private Bank of England, becoming the Government’s banker, and ultimately, its dominant role as the central bank. What is the contemporary relevance of the South Sea Bubble and its collapse? There are many angles that resonate in the current debate, but the point today is that the current recovery in the UK is the slowest in 300 years – that is since the glacial recovery following the collapse of the South Sea Company. And George Osborne thinks he is a champion.

The British Prime Minister gave a New Year’s speech in Nottingham on Monday (January 12, 2015), where he railed about the “dangers of debts and deficits” as part of the buildup to this year’s national election in Britain. There does not appear to be an official transcript available yet so I am relying on Notes that the Government released to the press containing extracts (Source). However, it is clear that the framing used by the British Prime Minister was seeking to personalise (bring down to the household level) public fiscal aggregates and invoke fear among the ignorant. The classic approach. There was no economic credibility to the Prime Minister’s claims. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a politically effective speech. So woeful was the response by the Opposition that it suggested Cameron’s speech was very effective. That is the state of things. Lies, myths and exaggeration wins elections.