#131: Not about “Brexit”


What follows is an analysis of the British economy, from the perspectives of performance and risk.

It is not a discussion of “Brexit”.

Readers are, of course, welcome to discuss any pertinent issue, “Brexit” included. But a non-“Brexit” focus has to be stated clearly, because one of the most regrettable effects of the whole “Brexit” process has been to divert attention away from the economic fundamentals. Distractions don’t come much bigger than “Brexit”.

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the British economic situation is the stark divergence between two different views. One of these is an official and consensus interpretation, founded on conventional economics, which portrays performance as no worse than lacklustre. There is, however, a raft of other indicators which paints a much less satisfactory picture.

Analysis undertaken using SEEDS – the Surplus Energy Economics Data System – indicates that prosperity peaked as long ago as 2003, and that the consequent strains are now becoming ever more apparent. Declining prosperity, of course, characterises most advanced Western economies. The United Kingdom stands out, though, for the rate at which prosperity is deteriorating, and for the elevated level of risk associated with this trend.

The great dichotomy

According to conventional metrics, the economy of the United Kingdom continues to grow, albeit at a less than sparkling pace. GDP is expected to increase by about 1.4% this year which, though hardly impressive, at least outpaces the 0.6% trend rate at which population numbers are expanding. People are, then, getting gradually better off, whilst unemployment remains low.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is hard – arguably, impossible – to square with a host of other indicators. First, wage growth is very subdued, barely keeping up with CPI inflation, and falling steadily further adrift of the cost of household essentials.

Second, productivity growth has fallen to virtually zero, having averaged just 0.2% since the 2008 global financial crisis (“GFC I”).

The labour market is characterised by increasing casualization and insecurity of employment, factors which contribute to depressed wage levels despite officially-low unemployment.

There is every reason to suppose that consumers’ ability to spend is in rapid retreat. Customer-facing businesses (including shops, restaurants and pubs) are going through a fire-storm of closures, failures and job losses. Consumer credit has climbed to potentially dangerous levels, with anecdotal evidence that this credit is being used, not for discretionary purchases, but simply to meet living expenses. There is also reason to suppose that big-ticket purchases are in decline. Surveys indicate that large and increasing numbers of households are struggling to make ends meet.

Government, too, seems strapped for cash, not really knowing how to provide necessary increases in funding for areas such as health, defence and care for the elderly. Local as well as central government looks resource-constrained.

Broader indicators of economic stress include homelessness, with young people, in particular, finding accommodation to be costly, often of poor quality, and hard to obtain. Seemingly-rapid rises in violent crime – including a dramatic surge in moped offences, of which there were 23,000 in London alone last year, compared with just 827 five years earlier – do not seem consistent with a prospering society.

In short, there is an abundance of evidence that, far from getting better off, the average British person is getting poorer. At first glance, this is impossible to square with any level of reported “growth” in economic output.

The SEEDS interpretation

An answer to this conundrum is supplied by SEEDS, which indicates that prosperity per person in the United Kingdom has been declining relentlessly since as long ago as 2003.

Over the period since then, reported GDP has risen by £386bn (23%), to £2.04 trillion last year from £1.65tn (at 2017 values) in 2003. Against this, however, aggregate debt increased by £2tn (62%).

This means that each £1 of reported growth has been accompanied by £5.20 in new borrowing. It also means that, against current growth expectations of about 1.4%, the UK typically borrows 5.7% of GDP each year.

The stark implication is that, like many other Western countries, Britain has been pouring cheap credit into the economy to shore up consumption. In short, most of the supposed “growth” of recent times has been nothing more substantial than the simple spending of borrowed money.

Stripped of this borrowing effect, SEEDS calculates that, within recorded growth of £386bn since 2003, only £77bn can be considered organic and sustainable. This puts ‘clean’ (borrowing-adjusted) GDP for 2017 at £1.59tn, barely ahead of the 2003 number of £1.53tn. On this basis, underlying growth has not kept up with increases in the population, so that ‘clean’ GDP per capita has decreased by 5.1% since 2003.

The compounding headwind has been a sharp rise in the energy cost of energy (ECoE). This, of course, is a worldwide problem, but has been particularly acute in the United Kingdom. Back in 2003, Britain’s ECoE (3.4%) was lower than the global average (4.5%). Today, though, ECoE is markedly higher in the UK (9.2%) than in the world as a whole (8.0%).

On a post-ECoE basis, prosperity per capita in Britain has fallen by 10.3% (£2,540), to £22,020 last year from a peak of £24,550 in 2003. Prosperity has declined in other Western countries over the same period, but Italy is the only major economy where the fall has been as rapid as in the UK.

SEEDS shows no sign of this downwards trend slackening, and projects that British prosperity will be a further 4.2% lower in 2022, at £21,090, than it was in 2017. In short, the average person is getting poorer at rates of between 0.5% and 1.0% each year.

Meanwhile, of course, his or her share of aggregate debt continues to increase.

Elevated risk

Deteriorating prosperity necessarily increases risk, because the ability to carry any given level of financial burden is a function of prosperity. Falling prosperity also impairs the ability to fund public services.

Trends in debt ratios reflect deteriorating prosperity. Aggregate debt at the end of 2017 (£5.25tn) equates to 258% of GDP but 361% of prosperity, the latter number having risen markedly since 2007 (283%).

More worryingly, the rise in debt exposure has been matched by sharp increases in proportionate financial assets, a measure of the size of the banking system. The most recent figure, for the end of 2016, puts Britain’s financial assets at 1124% of GDP, but this rises to 1547% when prosperity, rather than GDP, is used as the denominator. The SEEDS estimate of financial assets in relation to prosperity at the end of last year is 1577%, again sharply higher than the level on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007 (1285%).

Measuring debt and financial assets in relation to prosperity are two of the four risk yardsticks used by SEEDS. The UK looks high-risk on the debt measure, and extreme-risk in terms of the scale of its banking exposure.

On the third risk criterion, which is dependency on the continuing availability of credit, the British score is no worse than that of most comparable economies. The United Kingdom does, though, also depend on a continuing ability to borrow from abroad, to sell assets to overseas investors, and to attract inward flows of capital. This dependency looks risky, because the severe travails of customer-facing businesses, and the implied hardship of consumers, necessarily impair the attractiveness of Britain as a place in which to invest.

Finally, Britain has a high score on what SEEDS calls “acquiescence risk”. Put simply, the less prosperous people become, the less likely they are to back painful recovery plans should these be required in a future financial crisis. Worsening prosperity has already had a marked effect on political outcomes in America, France, Italy and elsewhere, and the same factor is likely to have tilted the balance decisively in the referendum on “Brexit”. Should it become necessary for Britain to repeat the 2008 rescue of the banks, popular acquiescence in such a measure should be no means be taken for granted.


SEEDS 2.15 United Kingdom 21072018


495 thoughts on “#131: Not about “Brexit”

  1. Disappointed that Dr Morgan has sought to stereotype Daily Mail readers as thick racists. Thats beneath you sir. I rarely read the DM, its been strangled by the internet, but it does reflect legitinate fears about the pace of change in this country. Please define what a racist is ?- someone that believes in.. national identity?, that stealing farms from white farmers is just as abhorent as apartheid?..that discussing the link between hiv and immigration is acceptable.?. Or is it just about virtue signalling?.Maybe Spaniards on holiday really are generally rude and abrupt to foreigners and dont particular like the english staying at their favourite hotel. Maybe they are racist but in an acceptable way?. Ofcourse its easy to be high minded when insulated by the securitys that being comfortably off affords.

    • I think there’s a distinction to be drawn here. I did not state that all Daily Mail readers are racists. That would be an absurd claim, and I’m sure most of them are not. I’ve written for the paper myself in the past. Amongst that minority who are racist, however, the Mail may be their paper of choice.

      As for being high-minded, I don’t do virtue signalling, I probably dislike PC as much as you do, and am opposed to all forms of censorship (so I’m perfectly happy to hear and discuss all and any points of view).

      But I do loathe discrimation on grounds of race. I began my career at a time when official government policy was “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa. I asked for, and was given by my employer, an exemption which allowed me to have no dealings with that country.

  2. Following the tragedy of the bridge collapse in in Italy I wonder if this is a taste of things to come where we can’t afford to repair our crumbling infrastructure in the future.

    There’s a well documented problem with reinforced concrete rotting – and as many of our structures rely on it (including some turbines) – we could be heading for a disastrous future.


  3. Thanks for your reply Dr Morgan. My view is very very few British people are ‘racist’ ie hate another group because of the colour of their skin.
    It therefore find it odd that you seem to believe that the Daily Mail is the paper of choice for the tabloid reading ‘racist’.

    By ‘racist’ do you mean someone that occasionally speaks the factually correct truth rather than the politically correct version?. It is ironic that on this matter you appear to have adopted the doctrine of the ‘unpopulists’ that have created our world divorced from reality.

    Everyday concerns have long been stifled but there are a growing number of people concerned that places like Dewsbury, Chapel town and others HAVE become incubators for bombings, jihad and terror attacks. Are these people racist for expressing this unease ?.

    Instead of asserting our own standards we have allowed ourselves to doubt our own values, cry racist all too often! and pander to the diversity agenda, the consequence of which are remote, disconnected Muslim ghettos where there has been virtually no social progress in 40 years.

    Pakistan is in a state of perpetual low grade civil war. Girls schools are burned down and punishment rape is common. As is gender selective abortion and forced marriage. Pakistani Muslims have been with us since the 70’s yet there are northern Muslim communities which have not in any way integrated and set up their own private economies within their own enclaves.

    In the North of England local politics is very much influenced by Kashmiri Pakistani tribal politics..It is a clash of cultures .There’s the child sexual abuse where we see young girls treated like animals specifically because they are not from within the Muslim community and a raft of other problems that have festered because we are scared to even mention them. ..
    Of course there will be some that will call me a racist for even mentioning these issues but I firmly believe that political correctness is just as potent a driver for our destruction as the rising cost of energy. It is unfortunate that PC cannot be measured directly as I suspect it would strongly correlate with falling prosperity in the Western world.

    A civilisation that turns it’s back on the absolute truth and views the world only how it thinks it should be is doomed – on that I hope we can both agree ?

    I share your dislike of the apartheid regime in South Africa, but did you consider at the time the alternative might be much worse?. Perhaps if the SA government hadn’t been crippled by sanctions, millions more Africans could have been lifted out of poverty ?. Then it would have been possible for a peaceful end to Apartheid not the cliff edge fall into economic ruin the country now faces ?

    Having witnessed the consequences of bad governance in Africa , starvation, war and corruption. Is there any reason to believe SA will do any better now that the economy seems to be imploding . When government ministers sing ‘kill the Boer’ and take away farms without compensation…where is the moral outrage now ?

Comments are closed.