London: Gentrification Capital of the World

London is undergoing rapid transformation. It has been the case since the mid-1990s and it shows no signs of slowing down. With this upsurge of development are qualities lost in the areas that are developed? Are the newer traits and trends in developed areas better than what was there before? 

Savilles

London Mayor Boris Johnson has been a stark proponent of inviting wealthy foreign investors to London. In October he suggested that VAT and import tax should be relaxed for our foreign neighbours in order to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

“VAT and import duty – those it seems to me are classically things that can be resolved by growing trade and co-operation between London and China, London and Beijing. We need a proper, thoroughgoing free-trade agreement. If the EU won’t do it we can do it on our own”

If this were to occur, many non-domiciles would be spending even more of their wealth in London. The idea of facilitating foreign wealth on new enterprise opportunities in London is one fully supported by the Mayor and several other politicians, including Chancellor George Osborne. The video below outlines some of Johnson’s plans for London. When you combine the Right To Buy scheme proposed by the Government it could be suggested that both the London and National government are looking to create another property boom.

The idea of new business, new stylish housing developments, newer communities and a new beginning for those who concur with the Mayor strike a positive cord. The fact that a prosperity bomb if you like, can explode and a plethora of new businesses can suddenly replaces older ones surely translate to a better, more profitable society. The fact that bigger businesses seek to expand to areas that are ripe for development ensures that plenty of jobs will be created, more of us will work and in a macro sense the economy will grow. Surely this is what we desire….

Or is it the case that newer developments and everything associated with it impose a revised culture that virtually replaces the existing one. Ensuring that this newer culture, this different way of life that imposes itself on existing residents is cohesive with the established culture is not usually a priority for developers or investors. In fact you could suggest that their priorities take precedent because their interests are deemed more important and their main priority is profit maximization. Much of the rhetoric is aimed at what is coming, what the future holds; new developments rarely acknowledge the qualities that the area had or look to uphold or maintain some of the non-monetary merits a community had. So residents that reside in areas that are listed for development are often left marginalised because the rate at which they usually have to adapt is relatively quick and it could be suggested that they no longer feel they are part of their community.

London is undergoing rapid transformation, many people welcome the new age of “prosperity” and many view it as an inevitable outcome of what our society eventually leads to. Nevertheless, there is a growing concern that the rate of change tends to strip away some of the qualities some communities once had, qualities that cannot be monetized, nor measured, nor necessarily tangible, but certainly potent and very much real.

This movement of people towards inner city London is peculiar because it tends to be to areas that were written off by several, deemed not fit for purpose by some, but home to so many who are now marginalised. What is even more striking is the fact that property prices, both rents and house prices are increasing. So demand is inelastic, in the sense that it is relatively unresponsive to a change in price. Therefore if you are a landlord or a developer the profits are virtually guaranteed due to this wave of perpetual inner city London demand.

New Dwelling house prices

New Dwelling house prices

Both graphs illustrate the rise and rise of property prices and the second graph clearly highlight the disparity between London and another large economic area: the North West.

According to the latest Census, Newham (East London) lost 38% of its white British population. This does suggest that many of its residents are opting for areas such as Essex to reside. On the contrary, between 2001 and 2011 Brixton, an area that used to be associated with a predominately Caribbean demographic has seen ten continuous years of increases. The same is noted in areas such as Hackney, Wandsworth, Camden and Islington. Moreover, Stoke Newington and Dalston have had increases from 15% in 2001 to 26% in 2011. What this highlights is that inner city areas ( mainly Zones 1 & 2 on the Tube map) have gradually become more accessible and more appealing to many.

My qualm lies with the fact that this movement of people inflates prices of rents, property, goods and services and it leaves existing people, many of whom have lived in that area for a long time financially constrained. Should more be done in order to reduce the negativity associated with prices you can no longer afford? Or does the onus lie with the individual? Clearly, this conundrum is not a priority for a government, especially this Tory led coalition that favours individualism and self-sufficiency. They have not hid the fact that they are looking more people to buy their homes. Perhaps they are merely continuing a legacy they prospered from so it is a continuation of what they believe in. It should be noted that I personally believe in helping yourself and becoming self-reliant, but helping each other is critical to upholding what is left of any community. This does seem to be eroding rapidly however. If you can unite and help one another, you are helping yourself whilst helping others and that is the current that binds a community. But this new wave of social cleansing and this message sent out by property developers and the government of profit over people gears our society for something that we are just at the beginning of. The future of London seems to be gearing towards only those that can afford it and prices do not seem to be going down. It will be a shame if the vast majority of London transforms into a city where only those with enough money can afford it. The way government policies are aimed, market power is structured and consumption trends are there only seems to be one outcome. The next twenty years will see the London demographic rapidly transform.

Do right wing parties become more popular during economic downturns?

Golden Dawn: Their sharp rise has occurred during the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression

Clearly the global economy is disarray. Several large economies around the world have still not resumed their pre crisis levels of output and that does not appear to be changing anytime soon. This has several consequences, unemployment across the world, especially in Europe is high, people have less disposable income so spending levels are lower and there seems to be rising support for right wing politics. This has led me to ask a question: do right wing political parties become more popular during periods of economic upheaval? My answer is yes.

Economic stagnation or downturns are periods in which more people lose their homes, credit is harder to obtain, several businesses close down, unemployment & underemployment rise and disposable income is reduced. They occur during an economic upturn, however, the positivity during an upturn far outweighs the negativity, so the effects are minimalized. So if we take the UK for example and we look back during Tony Blair’s premiership, the economy was booming during most of his time, with exception to the downturn of the early 2000s, (dot com bubble) post 2002 the economy is performing well. At the time Britain was pro E.U. and pro immigration and a lot people were contempt to allow migrant workers to come to Britain. Nobody can escape the UKIP hysteria; they were often ridiculed as just another political party whose views on immigration and E.U. membership were extreme. Now Nigel Farage has David Cameron looking over his shoulder. The progress UKIP have made since the credit crunch has been nothing short of remarkable. In this age where the main political parties have lost connection with several disillusioned members of the public, UKIP represent boldness and consistency. But their views are more acceptable during a time of economic disarray. They are saying nothing different from ten years ago, they were anti-E.U. then and they are now. They were anti-immigration then and they are now. And migrant workers coming into Britain is not a recent phenomenon, yet there surge in popularity has transformed them from just another political party comprising of disgruntled former Tories into a real pain to the three main political parties. Moreover, their MEP seat looks secure and a recent YouGov opinion poll shows that public opinion is on their side and politically, immigration is such a contentious issue, politicians know they must tread carefully around it, often lacking the boldness UKIP has, hence there surge in popularity.

UKIP leading the way according to poll                                                     YouGov

 This surge has stemmed from the fact that the large public sector cuts have affected millions of people. This is on the back of the huge bank bailouts ordered under Gordon Brown for several failing banks and the fact that the large public sector deficit does not appear to be reducing. Economically the UK has a long way to go. It certainly has a huge effect on people’s lives, their mood, thoughts and actions. People think differently during recessions and downturns and this is reflected on the political landscape. Politics provides the avenue in which any citizen can protest against political actions and clearly people are speaking out against the way society is today. And this is because the economy is in such a dire situation.

 Last year in France, François Hollande won the general election. By defeating Nicolas Sarkozy he was elected President. One could suggest that many French voted out of protest in order to remove Sarkozy due to the problems in the economy. The French had similar concerns to the British, mainly regarding its economic woes and social problems based around immigration. Moreover the real story of this election was Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right group Front National (National Front.) Of the 35,883,209 who voted, the Front National received 6,421,426 of the votes. So 18% of the votes went to a far-right political party. Thus the Front National came third overall. Again, their clear policies struck a cord with over six million people and this was their best election result to date.

The Euro Zone has come close to collapse and nowhere has that been more apparent than in Greece. Greece has always had high levels of public expenditure and around 10% unemployed for the last ten years, so this has added to the high national debt. Who should be blamed is not the issue at hand? If anyone should take responsibility it is the Greek politicians, for overseeing the mess and allowing public finances to spiral out of control. in the midst of this the far-right party Golden Dawn has had a huge impact on Greek politics, their surge in popularity certainly provide and sometimes channels the energy the recession has created. Their anti-immigration policies, much like Front National and UKIP have resonated with people and have provided them with the platform in which they hope to gain considerable election success.

If we look at the UK again, much of what the BNP said about immigration is not that different from what UKIP opine. Where they are on the political spectrum is different fair enough, but in terms of both being anti-immigration they are virtually the same. Yet the BNP was close to bankruptcy and UKIP appear to be going from strength to strength. Times have certainly changed. In an economic downturn people may have less patience for issues such as immigration, social housing and the provision of social services such as education and health care. This is usually because tax receipts have shrunk as a result of higher levels of unemployment, public sector cuts and less activity in the economy as a whole. So people may feel that domestic policy ought to prioritise its national citizens before seeing to the needs of others. What does not garner the same emotion from public attention are the benefits immigrants usually bring to communities. Ethnic minorities make up 6.24% of the Greek population. This figure has been growing steadily, but up until 2005, Golden Dawn were not the force they are now. The Greek economy has rotted since and the popularity of not just Golden Dawn, but right wing politics, especially in smaller parties, has gathered loyal cult followings, what they hope is that it manifests into tangible political success. They are at the very least making their bigger counterparts take notice, especially at local elections.

Personally, I think UKIP and the surge in popularity in far-right political parties highlight the sad state of politics in the UK and the rest of Europe today. However, I genuinely believe in freedom of political expression. For me UKIP provide more problems than solutions because they are virtually a one-policy party and I am yet to be convinced what they would do if the UK were to leave the E.U. In the case of the Front National in France, Le Pen was recently voted the most popular French female politician so she does not look to be losing any momentum.

I am confident that if the global economy was in a better state, more people had jobs and more money in their pocket then I can’t see where the far-right could get their impetus. Blaming immigrants for instance is a weak and flawed argument for the UK at least. There is no doubt that immigrants reduce the cost of labour, but the problems in the UK are more complex than blaming one group. Maybe the UK has got too many immigrants, but what I am certain of is this issue is not a simple case of close the borders and the problems will disappear. I would personally like to see the same energy exerted towards tax avoidance from large multinationals because that could potentially recoup billions in tax revenue.

How UKIP and other right wing parties perform in the next series of elections should be interesting, if the economy is still as sluggish as it is now, I predict well, and if the recovery is looking strong then I don’t think they’ll do that well. My only hope is that the economy starts to show real signs of growth and it will be interesting to see how the right reacts to that.

Beer Tax

 

This is an interesting analogy from Dr. David Kamerschen. It relates to progressive taxation. It is certainly worth a read. Dr. Kamerschen certainly presents a strong argument. Although, it could be suggested that it is a little simplistic in places, nevertheless, a compelling read.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics.

 

Budget 2013

Continuity rather than change as the UK economy continues to stroll along sluggishly

It has been a week since Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced his 2013 Budget and the reaction has been quite blunt in all honesty. The reaction probably reflects the state of the economy, flat and underwhelming. Osborne has decided to bring in more cuts, looser monetary policy and he is even trying to create another housing bubble.

Before I analyse some of the key facets of the Budget it should be noted that youth unemployment is close to 1m, underemployment (the number highly skilled workers in low paid work) currently stands at 3.05m and the Bank Of England is warning the country of a triple-dip recession. Things look bleak to say the least. With the economy performing so poorly I was hoping (not expecting) the Chancellor to announce at least one policy that could galvanise consumers; a cut in the rate of VAT would have been ideal. Retailers were complaining about a lack of spending on high streets at Christmas, making things cheaper would incentivise spending simply by making things cheaper. This could provide some remedy to the economy that clearly needs a boost.

But it was not to be and Osborne made it clear he was sticking to Plan A, deficit reduction. Unfortunately spending as a percentage of GDP has actually increased since the Coalition took power and this is due to the increase in unemployment and therefore welfare payments. This accounts for the nominal rise in welfare payments such as Job Seekers Allowance, but the decline in real terms. Home Secretary Iain Duncan Smith announcing a 1% increase.

Plan A is not working to the dismay of Osborne and the Office Of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR). The fiscal watchdog, a body founded by Osborne in 2010 had to revise its growth figures again, predicting growth in 2013 to just 0.6%, down from its previous figure of 1.2%. This is not the first time the OBR has had to revise its growth figures, leaving me to wonder how they can be repeatedly making either optimistic or unrealistic forecasts for growth. In their defence there are obviously only predictions and forecasts should never be taken as a given, still, it does not bode well. A figure of 1.2% is hardly triumphant; let alone slashing that figure by half.

As I mentioned the deficit is actually rising, so the austerity medicine is not actually working…yet. It was always a long-term goal, the goal to reduce the bloated public sector and have the private sector replace the jobs lost, but that clearly is not happening. The current deficit stands at £120billion, so the debt-to-GDP is at 88% (IMF). In other words, the public finances are going to have to reduce significantly until we say any major fiscal policies exerted by the government, as the debt-to-GDP is very high.

Clearly Osborne’s policies highlight his and the government’s stance on fiscal policies. But with the economy is such disarray there will be some avenue to try and stimulate the monetary side of the economy and this is the reason why Osborne has refreshed the Bank Of England’s mandate. In an attempt to provide more room to maneuver the Bank of England will now be a little more flexible in it approach. Perhaps the biggest change in the Bank Of England’s mandate is something known as “explicit forward guidance” whereby the MPC makes a pledge to keep rates very low over a designated period. This should give markets more confidence due to the stability announcements should provide. It should also grant consumers with sufficient information about interest rates on loans, if rates remain low it should encourage more spending. These outcomes remain hypothetical and over time, the Chancellor may refresh the remit. In my opinion, the policies may be ineffective. If you look at the current interest rate, it has been at a record low level of 0.5 % since March 2009 and that still has not added much to market confidence. This situation resembles Japan in the early 1990s. Not only can predictions be made about the interest rate, but the evidence given highlights that it does not always translate to increase in spending, despite the low level of interest attached. We could even be in a liquidity trap, a state in an economy where monetary policies have no effect on growth. The interest rate has been 0.5% since March 2009, since then the Bank Of England have tried to boost the economy by buying government debt, quantitative easing, which is monetary policy. Growth has remained very low and the policies do not appear to be working.

The Chancellor also announced a new policy known as the “Help to Buy” policy, which is designed to protect banks against losses on high value mortgages. Politically, it may look good, but economically there are questions. It sounds like a government funded credit bubble. Whilst I do not think it will resemble anything like what we saw during the Blair days of the economy being pumped full of toxic mortgages. As time elapses, the scheme will undoubtedly become clearer. It may even provide the boost this economy so desperately needs.

In all honesty this Budget has confirmed that the UK has a long road ahead in terms of a tangible growth. The economy continues to “grow” at a disappointing rate and there are more cuts to come. Despite the cut in beer relief, the cut in cooperation tax that benefits large multinationals more than small or medium sized ones, this Budget has reflected the mood of the economy. It has been flat.

George Osborne’s record in statistics

George Osborne’s record in statistics

After announcing the Winter Statement, here is a look at George Osborne’s record.

Source: The Guardian

Betting Shops take away more than money.

Directly across this road is Jennings Bet. 20 yards down this road is Coral. 200 yards down this road is William Hill

The gambling industry in the UK has exploded in the last fifteen years. The rapid technological advancements have helped to facilitate the boom in gambling and this has helped generate billions in revenue. There are however several social and economic implications with gambling shops. Gambling shops tend to take away more from society than they contribute.

Businesses have an obligation to return profits. That is their goal and everything else is secondary. They have no moral obligation to ensure that society is “better off” unless it is at the request of their shareholders. There is however a bigger, more poignant point that has to be made. That is betting shops, particularly in poorer areas take away more than money.

I have lived in South East London for my entire life and I pass through Deptford on a daily basis and at the beginning of a road named Evelyn Street there is a William Hill. If you travel further, some two hundred yards or so there is a Paddy Power. Across the road from the Paddy Power is a Jennings Bet and across the road is a Coral. On one road there are four competing betting shops, all providing the same service. All situated in an area of relatively low income and more importantly, all taking more away from the local community than putting back in. The main reason why I am opposed to so many betting shops in poorer areas is because the very nature of gambling ensures that money is taken away from the participant. Bookmakers may glamorise unfavorable odds by emphasing the potential winnings and bombarding customers with the rewards, but there would be no gambling industry if it were designed to reward customers. Its very purpose is to take money away. Moreover, there is more to lose if you naturally earn lower income. Individuals on lower incomes are spending a higher proportion of their earnings in betting shops; therefore they bear a greater burden if they lose.

According to BBC News bookmakers argue they create jobs and support the local community. Vague and hollow statements may wash with some, but that is an empty statement. Labour costs are the price every business must pay regardless, so to opine that is stating the obvious. “Support the local community.” How? By extracting money from low earners? Betting shops omit what we call in economics negative externalities. Externalities are the cost or benefit of ones actions that affect a third party. Betting shops create jobs (positive externality) but the increase in reckless gambling results in higher policing, higher health costs and a reduction in the quality of local lives for the rest of the community. All negative externalities. Thus, the high social costs far outweigh the social benefits.

Earlier this year more than 1,100 local Southwark residents signed a petition to curtail the number of betting shops in their local area. The campaign is aimed at changing planning laws so that betting shops cannot move into closed banks or post offices. Currently they can because they are classified as financial and professional services. But a change in the law will see them have to go through different, more difficult channels to obtain retail space. Something that would be welcomed by many.

Rowena Davis, a Councillor from Peckham South London started the petition, here is what she said:

“When I walk through my area within 10 minutes I pass eight bookmakers and that means they are more common than post offices or corner shops. We know they are clustering in poorer areas.”

Clearly this is an issue that several parties feel strongly about. As I mentioned earlier, betting shops have no moral obligation to uphold, their aim is to maximise profits. But they should still be aware of the high social costs that are imposed on society because of their predatory actions and local councils should also be aware that when betting shops are saturated on a high street, they will bear higher social costs as a result.

Government Debt and the effects on UK Unemployment.

There has been no secret of the coalition’s economic policies. That has been to reduce the deficit, i.e. the amount of money the government looses each year. The government has also aimed to reduce the burden of high levels of government debt. How it implements these policies has a drastic effect on the UK economy and in particular, unemployment.

Clintons are one of many well known brands to feel the strain of these tough economic times

Government debt management affects all aspects of the economy. The substantial reductions in government spending have led to several members of the population forced to find alternative employment. George Osborne was confident that the private sector would compensate for the jobs lost through the government policies. It is therefore vital to analyse how government debt management has affected the rate of unemployment. UK unemployment is currently 2.53 million, which is 7.9% of the population, which has fallen from the previous is sixteen year high. Last year unemployment peaked at 8.4%. This was an increase by 118,000 from September to November 2011 and a further 28,000 from November to January 2012. Clearly the government’s policies have not had the desired effect.

OECD Economic Outlook 2011

Above is a graphical depiction of the rise in unemployment from 2008, with both jobs losses in the public and private sector also depicted. Despite the claim in the November 2010 Budget, Osborne claimed that the private sector would compensate for the jobs lost in the public sector, the evidence is clearly contrasting to the government’s claim.  The Chancellor claimed,

“Public-sector job creation would far outweigh the job losses in the public-sector.”

Unemployment in the UK continues to rise to record levels and the jobs being lost in the public sector are a direct result of government policy. When The Chancellor made the premature assumption that the private sector would compensate for the jobs lost through the public sector it may have highlighted an inadequacy in government policy. High and rising levels of unemployment is detrimental for economic growth because it places a financial strain on those working as transfer payments such as Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) and benefits. The number of individuals claiming JSA has risen by 28,000 from November 2011 to January 2012. With further increases expected for the rest of 2012 and 2013.  Moreover, there has been an increase in part-time employment as jobseekers have been desperate to earn some income, but it is proving insufficient to make a substantial difference in terms of contributing towards substantial economic growth.

In addition, the higher than target inflation, those in work will have less disposable income and the government will have to increase transfer payments out to those affected by unemployment. Secondly, tax revenue will also decrease simply because less people are in work, the government must therefore create employment in order to raise taxes so it can finance expenditure that can later contribute to economic growth.

Unemployment is therefore the greatest challenge facing the UK economy because it does not appear to declining. By making such large expenditure cuts, the government may have undermined any recovery effort and may find it very difficult to reduces its debt obligations. The most effective method to reducing government debt is establishing sustained economic growth, however, sustained economic growth in the UK is some considerable way away. Although the UK economy is no longer in recession, rising unemployment will continue to place a severe burden on those in work due to the inflationary and tax restraints already in place, with lower disposable income, growth is likely to remain very low. Moreover, the method in which the government has chosen to reduce its debt may have exacerbated the problem because of the sharp rise in structural unemployment.

The Writing On The Wall: Eurozone fail to take decisive action

Eurozone leaders tacit failure to take prompt action leaves Eurozone a long way from recovery.

The current eurozone crisis is not going to end any time soon. Despite Mario Draghi’s so-called “ice-cream,” a pledge by the European Central Bank (ECB) to intervene in the European bond market, the optimism was brief and the current crisis remains more potent than ever. What is most striking  are some of the parallels between the current eurozone crisis and the European Monetary System (EMS) crisis of 1992-1993 and more importantly, the inability of European ministers to act effectively on past mistakes.

Many Greeks and Spaniards have stoned police cars and set fire to shops to protest budget cuts, to little avail. Hitherto, the EMS crisis, although in hindsight is not of the same magnitude, relatively speaking, there are many mistakes that have been repeated during the current crisis. Interest rate harmonization across the entire euro-zone clearly does not work due to the structural imbalances of the Northern, wealthier states and the Southern, poorer states. Similarly, when the UK wanted to reduce interest rates during the 1992-1993 EMS crisis, they were prohibited, due to the dominance of the German economy (sound familiar ?) and when they maintained high interest rates due to several factors, including the reunification of East and West Germany it had a detrimental affect on the British economy. Moreover, this imbalance of economic performance requires a significantly tighter fiscal framework that will complement the monetary framework already in place, without this, the crisis will not be solved and this increases the possibility of another crisis reoccurring in the future. Furthermore, had Greek, Spanish, Irish, Italian and most European nations adopted a much stricter fiscal framework, then the problems of today would be severely reduced.

This has been the hallmark of the eurozone, austerity is the bitter medicine for over indulgence on cheap credit

It should be noted that the legal framework was already in place to circumvent nations from binging on cheap and available credit, but this has proven to be nothing more than hollow rhetoric. The ECB’s decision however to act as lender of last resort should provide the framework for the fiscal unity that the euro-zone has required since its inception. Monetary unity alone is not sufficient, both fiscal and monetary unity is required to harmonize the euro-zone. Nevertheless, by accepting the stringent fiscal reform package, the indebted nations will be relinquishing national sovereignty, which is a consequence of the over indulgence of available credit. Undoubtedly, these are the very beginnings of the proposed reforms and many citizens in the heavily indebted countries may not have the patience to wait until these reforms manifest into tangible results. This transition period marks a significant time for the euro-zone and many nations may feel time is running out. The Stability and Growth Pact was intended to penalize nations with a debt-to-GDP ratio greater than 60%. Clearly, the intentions were correct, but the implementation or rather, the lack of demonstrates the incapability of euro-zone leaders to take decisive action.

The intentions of the SGP were understandable; any union that would amalgamate several contrasting economies needed a stringent fiscal framework in order for it to function appropriately. If we analyse the current euro-zone crisis, the authenticity of the SGP is in question because strict sanctions were to be imposed on any nation who did not adhere to the ‘strict’ conditions set by the EU. If this were the case then several nations including Germany, Italy and Greece in particular would have been punished appropriately for their fiscal mismanagement. Former UK Prime Minister John Major suggests that:

“Southern states over indulged on low interest-rates and racked up debts. When Germany and France over-stepped the criteria without any penalty by the commission, the criteria became toothless.” 

It is fair to suggest with hindsight that sanctions on nations who had failed to abide by the framework set by the EMU would have almost minimalized the severe economic damage that has beset the euro-zone today. Had sanctions been imposed some ten years ago, or even five, then the severe problems that appear only to be appearing now could have been dealt with then.

Nations were meant to be punished if government debt-to-GDP exceeded 60%.

With regards to the realization of the EMU, the SGP was implemented in 1997, two years before the data range in the graph. Despite a prerequisite of national debt being less than 60% of GDP levels, the graph above highlights the inability of euro-zone members failing to deal with nations not following the fiscal framework. This tacit failure to impose sanctions on members allowed certain members continue to let national debt to grow until it became an apparent and uncontrollable problem, hence, the systemic failure of the system itself. Clive Cook of Bloomberg is one of several commentators who have critical views on not only the SGP, but of EU governance in general.

“Remember the EU’s vaunted Stability and Growth Pact of 1997, which supposedly put limits on public borrowing — and which Germany, by the way, violated? The same syndrome is evident today. Write a new rule now, worry about enforcing it later. This has been the hallmark of EU governance.”

Moreover, this has been a consistent theme that has underpinned EU and euro-zone governance (or lack of). Despite apparent mechanisms being in place to prevent severe economic shocks, euro-zone nations appear to have repeated some of the same systemic errors, the only difference with the EMS crisis of 1992 and the current crisis is the severity, the current crisis however appears to be of a much greater proportion, with the lasting effects significantly greater.

Clearly, the current economic crisis that is crippling the euro-zone could have been prevented if decisive action was taken to punish nations who did not adhere to the ‘strict’ rules set out in the SGP. Retrospective analysis does little to compensate the fact that the damage as a result of this failure has been catastrophic. There is no easy remedy; the euro-zone must comply with the reform package set out by the ECB in order to have the fiscal harmonization so desperately required in order to achieve the goal of a single currency. Without both monetary and fiscal unity, this crisis will occur in the future, and the consequences far worse, something that seems too difficult to comprehend at this moment in time.

Starbucks: The Bitter Taste Of Success.

Starbucks in hot water over conduct

Starbucks is facing growing criticism in the UK for paying no corporation tax in the last three years and only paying £8.6m in the last fourteen years of trading. Despite revenue exceeding £3bn in that time, they have managed to pay under £10m and have not paid a penny in the last three years. This does beg the question of how a large corporation, with 735 stores nationwide can manage to pay such little tax. Starbucks has announced consecutive losses from 2008 to now, yet they have managed to expand their operations. It is difficult to comprehend how a business can expand its operations, whilst making substantial losses. Starbucks has adopted a rapacious approach to the coffee market in the UK. It is the global coffee chain and it is the leading chain in the UK.

The head of Starbucks operations in the UK and Ireland is a man named Kris Engskov. Engskov was a former aide to Bill Clinton and during Clinton’s election campaign. A strategy they adopted was to highlight the shortcomings of George Bush Snr’s lassies-faire attitude towards large corporations who were avoiding tax. They used several means to draw the elctorates attention towards it, including a host of ad campaigns

“This is the $825bn question. That’s how much foreign corporations operating in the US took in one year. But 72% of them didn’t pay a dime in taxes. Not one dime …” 

The real issue however lies with what Starbucks tell Her Majesty’s Customs & Revenue (HMRC) and what they tell their investors. There does appear to some inconsistencies with what is being said. In 2008, Starbucks filed £26m loss in the UK, yet their CEO Howard Schutlz told an analysts call that the UK business had been “so successful” he planned to take the lessons he had learnt there and apply them to the company’s largest market, the United States. One does not even know where to begin to try and understand the reasoning behind such a move. Such losses would be a grave cause for concern, yet Schutlz seems adamant to replicate this model in a substantially larger market. Schultz even promoted the person who oversaw this substantial loss, a man named Cliff Burrows. Schultz said he was looking forward to Burrows “now applying the same drive and business acumen to leading our US business.” This seems very odd.

In 2009, Starbucks filed a £52m loss whilst the Chief Financial Officer Troy Alstead proclaimed that operations in the UK were “profitable.” This is clearly a contradiction, unless he does not understand what profit is, because announcing such losses that are exactly double of their previous year and to describe overall activity as “profitable” is quite frankly a farce. In 2010, £34m in losses was announced and Starbucks informed investors that sales continued to grow. And just for good measure, in 2011 they announced losses of £33m and John Culver, the President of Starbucks’ International Division told analysts on a call earlier in that year “we are very pleased with the performance in the UK.” How senior figures and investors alike within Starbucks can continue to be unreasonably optimistic despite losses of £145m since 2008 should have rung alarm bells at HMRC, it did not.

If we look at Starbucks competitors such as Costa Coffee, they actually sold less than Starbucks. 2011 sales in Costa were £377m, whilst Starbucks reported £398m. Yet despite achieving greater sales, they incurred much higher costs, £319m that was more than three times that of Costa. Consequently, Costa paid £15m in tax to HMRC and Starbucks paid nothing. Obviously, both companies are separate and would certainly have completely different balance sheets, but Starbucks are the market leader in the UK for coffee, not only have they been around for longer, but they are also have a larger proportion of the market, so how despite greater sales, it cannot pay tax may be beyond the scope of this piece. Moreover, if we look at McDonalds sales since 2008 they exceed £3.5bn, they paid £80m in tax. KFC paid £36m in tax, with sales of £1.1bn; Starbucks paid £0 in tax despite generating sales of £1.2bn.

This episode does raise key questions that may not receive the attention it may ought to have. George Osborne gave a stern assessment of what a lot of people in the UK thought of the benefit system in his speech two weeks ago at the Conservative Party conference. Whilst he is entitled to his opinion on the matter, it would be refreshing to see the same energy exerted at a more comprehensive check on all corporations with regards to tax avoidance and the mechanisms a lot of firms have in place to purposely avoid paying the correct fee. This is not an emotive matter; this is simply an issue of paying what is right. Moreover, this will continue to occur unless more politicians highlight it and if there are the legislative amendments that will fix what appears the loophole that many large firms can exploit.

We cannot demand transparency from a private firm, they have no obligation to disclose such information, and we can however demand transparency from the elected officials who are meant to facilitate business, whilst holding them accountable when necessary.