PREVIEW: Brokenomics | UK Bond Crisis
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
165.30698
Summary
In this episode, I talk about the lack of a competent government in the UK, and compare it to the US and compare Labour to the Tories, and why they are so much worse than the ones we ve had in the past.
Transcript
00:00:00.320
Hello and welcome to Brokenomics. Now in this episode I thought I'd talk about something
00:00:04.640
which is quite topical. Things have been blowing up this week in the UK. It would be nice wouldn't
00:00:10.640
it if we could have some decent competent governments in the UK and we certainly haven't
00:00:15.840
had that for very many years and we definitely, most definitely don't have it now. Now I was,
00:00:22.640
as we all were at the Lotus Eaters, rather keen to get rid of the Tories at the last election
00:00:26.160
because they had betrayed us on so many fronts. The massive levels of taxation, the astonishingly
00:00:32.880
huge amount of mass immigration which they, and I'm not talking about the people on the boats,
00:00:38.800
that small fry, I'm talking about the legal migration they just shipped people in with no
00:00:43.360
particular skills to put them on welfare. An astonishing betrayal and the taxes and the
00:00:49.600
Covid, they did have to go. But we were certainly under no illusions that Labour would be any better
00:00:58.800
and they are demonstrating that quite ably at the moment by taking the low standards that the
00:01:06.000
Tories left for them and managing to be significantly worse than them. Now spending has been far too high
00:01:13.360
for far too long. I told this story on the podcast last week but prior to Covid I was looking at the
00:01:23.280
financial situation and I wasn't a podcaster or anything at that time, I was just a general chap
00:01:28.000
on the street who knew a little bit about this stuff and I was thinking they've got to get a handle on
00:01:35.200
this soon. Because basically things weren't necessarily that great before 2008 but after 2008,
00:01:42.960
great financial crisis everything began to spiral and get significantly worse. We had David Cameron
00:01:49.200
come in not too long after that and he was talking about doing austerity, cutting public sector spending
00:01:56.640
and contrary to the hype, they never did it. And I remember having this argument with a new government
00:02:07.040
minister that I knew and I was saying, you appreciate but they're not actually cutting any government
00:02:11.840
spending. And he was like, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm having to make cuts all the time
00:02:16.160
in my department. I said, no, no, what's happening is the actual amount of spending is going up.
00:02:22.160
It's simply going up slightly less than the rate of inflation which means that you're having to
00:02:27.520
re-prioritise within your department. And he didn't believe me and we went over to the House
00:02:32.560
of Commons library and dug out a copy of the budget and he was shocked to discover that yes, in fact,
00:02:38.320
government spending never ceased going up. It was just going up by a little bit less
00:02:43.840
when they planned it to, which is described as a cut in our system. So, you know, David Cameron's
00:02:50.960
government, they never cut. Theresa May, you know, got bogged down in trying to get out of Europe,
00:02:58.240
which she clearly didn't want to and ended up committing us to vast sums going to them when we
00:03:03.200
could have re-chartered a new course. Boris Johnson was a epic disaster. I mean, certainly our last,
00:03:11.840
our worst prime minister in the last 50 years with the mass immigration and the COVID and,
00:03:16.480
you know, he's up against some tough competition for that. He had no clue when it came to spending
00:03:22.640
or anything like that. Liz Trust was probably the best of the bunch and we get into some comparisons
00:03:29.840
of her against, because a lot of people are comparing this current UK situation to what she did.
00:03:35.680
There are some comparisons that are worth making on that front, and we will cover that. And then
00:03:42.000
Rishi Sunak, who was just, maybe he was okay on the finances, difficult to tell. He wasn't in for that
00:03:46.880
long, but he was certainly politically in net and, you know, he had to go. But since we've had Labour,
00:03:54.480
they've behaved in a way that is so completely disconnected from reality. At least with the Tories,
00:04:01.680
they did the wrong thing reasonably competently. Whereas Labour are doing the wrong thing
00:04:10.240
incompetently. And I mean, I'll give you an example. I mean, essentially what it is,
00:04:14.880
now I'll explain exactly what it is. Exactly what it is, is Labour have been looking at the way the US
00:04:22.080
operates. They looked at the way the Biden government was, with its big deficits, so spending more than it
00:04:29.760
earns and its big social programmes. And Labour thought, well, if Joe Biden can do it, we can do it too.
00:04:38.480
And what they are discovering is that the UK cannot do what the US does. And the simple reason for that
00:04:45.040
is that the US has the dollar. And the dollar is the global reserve currency, meaning that people
00:04:52.160
always need dollars, they always want dollars to settle international trade, make international
00:04:59.520
investments, buy oil, that kind of stuff. So when Janet Yellen, their version of our Chancellor, more or
00:05:08.720
less, when she gets a bit ambitious and spends too much, she can just get in touch with Jerome Powell
00:05:18.640
at the Fed and say, look, I've got a problem on my screen, can you fix it on one of your screens?
00:05:24.480
And he could just magic up some extra dollars. And people will want those dollars because people
00:05:31.520
want dollars for the reasons that, you know, we've already got into that international demand,
00:05:36.720
global currency reserve. The UK cannot, cannot do that. I mean, yes, foreign nations and corporations
00:05:44.640
will hold a certain amount of pounds, but there's nowhere near the demand that there is for dollars.
00:05:48.800
And if you run Biden level insanity without the dollar backing you up, you're going to get called
00:05:56.560
out significantly sooner. And that's essentially what's happened. So over the past week, at the
00:06:01.280
point of recording, UK bonds of bond rates have risen to their highest level in 26 years. And you have
00:06:08.880
to go back to the Asian financial crisis to find a time when bond rates were higher than they are now.
00:06:14.080
Quick point on this. It gets a little bit confusing with bond rates. When I say bond rates have gone up,
00:06:19.040
what we mean by that is that the price of the bonds themselves has fallen. So basic economics,
00:06:25.680
things that people want to go up in price and things that people don't want tend to fall in price
00:06:31.520
because there's no demand for them. With bonds, they also pay out an annual coupon. So the price of the
00:06:36.880
actual thing is falling, then the yield on it is going up. If I'm a UK government and I'm issuing a
00:06:45.520
hundred pound bond and it pays a five pound coupon a year, the price of the bond goes up to 110 pounds
00:06:56.560
because everybody wants to buy my bonds, not the situation we're in. But if price goes up to 110,
00:07:02.480
then my yield that I'm having to pay out, I'm getting 110 pounds in and only having to pay out
00:07:10.080
five pounds. So my yield has gone down to about four and a half percent. But if it goes the other way,
00:07:15.600
if nobody wants my bonds and I can only sell them for 90 pounds per five pounds a coupon,
00:07:23.680
well now my rate, my yield on this has gone up to 5.5 percent. So yields going up is bad
00:07:30.960
and we tend to talk about bonds in those terms, which can be a little bit confusing because you
00:07:34.400
might think, okay, bonds going up, that's a good thing. No, it's not. It's the rates that we're
00:07:38.400
talking about that are going up. So to map this out, what happened is last Tuesday,
00:07:43.280
so that should be two weeks before you watch this because I tend to record these a week in advance.
00:07:48.640
And you can tell me in the comments if things got significantly worse in the week between
00:07:56.000
recording and this going out. I don't think it will. Actually, I think what's going to happen
00:07:59.840
is this situation is bad, but it's not acutely bad enough to blow up immediately. It's bad enough
00:08:05.920
to make us poorer and it's bad enough for the train to stay on the track. What you kind of want is
00:08:12.320
is something else. You either want the situation to improve or to get bad so quickly that the
00:08:16.480
government is forced to capitulate or be thrown out. And if it does capitulate but it manages to
00:08:22.640
stay in, then it slashes spending across the board, all that kind of stuff. And that's probably not
00:08:27.280
going to be the situation. So I don't feel too bad about recording this a little bit in advance.
00:08:31.200
But two weeks ago, from your point of view, what happened is the government issued
00:08:34.560
30-year debt, 30-year bonds. And it did that at a rate of about 5.2%, which is already very high
00:08:49.120
because there had been that slow loss in confidence of the Labour government throughout their term.
00:08:55.440
And in the days following, you saw it go up the first 20, then 30 basis points, which is 0.3%.
00:09:06.320
And you might think, okay, well, that's not necessarily a huge amount. Actually,
00:09:09.040
yeah, for bonds it is. That is a large amount. For every percentage point that UK bonds go up,
00:09:17.360
it costs the UK government about 30 billion over the course of the whole duration of the debt.
00:09:24.640
So borrowing costs have soared. Comparisons to the Liz Trust Mini budget, which I will come back to,
00:09:32.080
have abounded. But this is a serious loss of confidence in the UK. And that's why it's worth
00:09:37.440
covering. Because it's not just that people are saying, no, I don't want to buy those government
00:09:42.560
bonds and therefore the rates have risen. It is more than that. It is a wholesale rejection
00:09:48.320
of investing in Britain. And you can see that because the pound has also fallen. And normally
00:09:53.440
it doesn't work like that. Normally, if the UK government guilts are bonds, we call them guilts
00:09:59.040
for whatever reason, government, UK government bonds get called guilts. Normally, if a government's
00:10:04.400
bonds, the rate of them going up, well, that makes those bonds more attractive to investors,
00:10:09.840
because, of course, you can get a higher rate of them. And so what should happen in that situation
00:10:14.720
is that money flows into the UK, the pound goes up, and that compensates for it. And then some of
00:10:22.000
those bonds get bought at the higher rate. But what's actually happening is that people are just
00:10:25.840
saying, no, I want no part of the UK. I don't want the bonds, but also I don't want any of the other
00:10:30.400
assets, mainly stocks, but whatever commodities we still produce, whatever assets that we might have,
00:10:40.320
the world is basically saying, oh, I'm done with the UK. I want to get out of there. And that makes
00:10:45.360
it alarming. It means that the UK is running out of road. And the government, even though they've only
00:10:54.640
been in office for a few months, they've completely fouled up on the response to the Southport murders.
00:11:03.040
They made a complete mess of the grooming gangs scandal. They've also, they're running us into
00:11:09.200
the financial ground. I'll get into more detail on all of those. But yeah, it's not good. A lot of criticism
00:11:15.920
has come down on Rachel Reeves. A lot of us derisively call her Rachel from the Counts,
00:11:23.760
because that's basically the calibre of the woman. She should be a low-level functionary.
00:11:30.080
She should not be Chancellor of the UK. Her budget, which is where this all really kicked off in October,
00:11:40.320
she went after employment taxes. So she'd said before the election that she wasn't going to raise
00:11:46.800
taxes on employment. She immediately did. Only thing is that the way she did it was by raising
00:11:54.880
employers tax on employing people, which doesn't directly hit the employees on day one.
00:12:04.880
So they thought they were being very clever because nobody would see the tax line in their payslip
00:12:11.760
go up. But because it's more costly to employ people, basically she just robbed them of their
00:12:17.680
next pay rise. Or she made it more likely that they're going to be replaced by AI or automation
00:12:23.360
or something like that. I'll come back to the response that this is having in the industry,
00:12:28.640
but basically people are not hiring anymore. She left the last budget with a financial headroom,
00:12:35.040
as they call it, of about £10 billion. Which is not much for a country the size of the UK to have
00:12:40.080
a £10 billion headroom in your budget. But all of that has almost certainly gone at this point.
00:12:47.600
She probably has no headroom. What she does is going to be £1 billion. Now that's an issue because
00:12:52.240
you do actually have your day-to-day expenses. You've got a large workforce working for the government
00:12:59.120
that needs to be paid and other contracts that need to be serviced, other cash flows that need
00:13:04.320
to go out. So either you're going to have to pay these much higher bond rates and they're still
00:13:09.120
climbing day by day, or you need to bring in some emergency cuts, or you find another route
00:13:15.600
and you just sort of magic the money out of the air. I'm not going to spoil it, but you can probably
00:13:20.320
guess that's more or less what she's going to do. Rachel herself is, as we talked about,
00:13:27.120
incompetence. It doesn't necessarily mean that she's not the best qualified of the people that
00:13:33.840
could have been picked, because of course she can only pick from Labour MPs. But she is incompetent.
00:13:39.520
She lied on her CV about her background. She put herself forward as a trained economist who served
00:13:49.920
that function in the Bank of England and private industry, and that simply isn't true. She was a low
00:13:56.160
level functionary at the Bank of England. She managed complaints for a bank and they eventually sacked
00:14:03.440
her because she was basically skiving off work all the time to do Labour Party activism. So they got rid
00:14:10.800
of her. She plagiarised for a book. She's had her credit cards suspended. So it's disappointing really,
00:14:20.080
because you like to go through life thinking that the people in government are at least as competent
00:14:27.200
as you are, preferably significantly more competent. If they've risen to such a great office and we've got
00:14:35.760
somebody here, and I'm not bragging, I could easily do a better job than Rachel Reeves. Not even close.
00:14:43.120
I could easily do a better job than her. So she got into this pickle. Her response was, instead of,
00:14:49.920
okay, spending is out of control, we're going to rein it in. We're not going to have all of these
00:14:56.320
immigrants, because 60% of London social housing is occupied by people who weren't born here. We just ship
00:15:03.280
people in, put them in housing and give them benefits. It's enormously expensive. We can't afford it.
00:15:11.200
Some of the other welfare changes that she made, I mean, on day one, they came in and gave huge pay rises
00:15:17.680
to the workers in the NHS. You know, we can't afford the existing NHS bill, let alone, you know, these
00:15:24.400
additional wages. But they felt they had to do it because the NHS is an unworkable model and too many people
00:15:31.120
were leaving to, you know, doctors would commonly go and work in Australia instead where they can earn
00:15:35.280
more. That's because the underlying model is wrong. But anyway, so they didn't want to cut taxes.
00:15:42.640
Sorry, they didn't want to cut spending. And so her solution over the weekend was, okay, well,
00:15:50.160
people, we've taxed them to limit. What are we going to do? And her solution was,
00:15:56.960
well, we're going to put a tax on hotels. And the logic here is because nobody can afford to go abroad
00:16:02.560
anymore for their holiday and people having holidays in the UK, well, we just tax hotels in the UK and
00:16:11.120
that will give us some extra tax. So you can't even afford to do that anymore. And the market response
00:16:16.160
on Monday morning open was, again, yields up, sterling down. So she basically has no good choices from her
00:16:25.920
point of view. I mean, from my point of view, it'd be very easy because I think that cutting
00:16:31.040
from UK government spending is a very target rich environment. It'd be very easy to do.
00:16:35.920
But these people are ideologically possessed that state spending is good and all of it is
00:16:41.120
necessary. And so she feels trapped. She feels that there's nothing that we can do. And again,
00:16:45.440
I'm going to spoil it, my conclusion, but they're just going to have to print money,
00:16:49.440
which is dangerous considering the inflationary environment that we're in.
00:16:54.000
So you'll probably be hearing in the news, especially if you're in the UK,
00:16:57.360
that bond vigilantes are back. They're trying to make it sound like it's just this speculative attack
00:17:04.640
on poor old Rachel from the Counts. First female chancellor, therefore she must be good.
00:17:15.280
Awful bond vigilantes. The problem is it's not just a global phenomena. It's not just something
00:17:22.080
that's happening. Yes, yields are rising around the world because basically the Western world all has
00:17:28.000
this problem where they spend more than they earn and they don't want to get a grip to it. They don't
00:17:32.160
want to change the social model. They don't want to change the model of government. So they've all
00:17:38.160
had this. But if it was purely a global situation and not a particular UK situation, you wouldn't be
00:17:45.120
seeing the UK getting to its highest relative rates against any sort of chosen comparable. Now,
00:17:53.440
you wouldn't be seeing UK rates at their highest since 1998, the Asian financial crisis,
00:18:00.000
if it was purely global. This is a particular sickness within the UK. It is a particular
00:18:06.240
effect of labour policy. And you've got to remember that these rising yields, they don't
00:18:13.120
just affect government borrowing costs. I've already talked about the extra billions that the UK
00:18:20.000
government is spending, but it trickles into corporate costs, again affecting growth and employment,
00:18:27.120
and it trickles into UK mortgages. So if you've got a UK mortgage, certainly for a while,
00:18:35.440
unless they come back with some big monetary response, your mortgage costs are going to go up.
00:18:40.960
You're going to be a lot of people in the UK whose mortgages will go up by £500 a month. In an
00:18:46.000
environment where business isn't growing because business growth has been choked off, where they're not
00:18:51.680
getting their pay rises, where inflation is pushing up their bill. And on top of that, their mortgage
00:18:56.880
could be going up £500 a month or more. So what a complete mess. So they're trading at their highest
00:19:07.280
level for 26 years. It's seriously bad news for the UK because their entire plan is that we are going
00:19:16.240
to borrow more money from the bond market to pay for all this state spending that we feel that we need.
00:19:22.160
And actually taxes has topped out as well. You look at UK tax take as a percentage of
00:19:28.400
national income. It never gets above about the mid-30s. Whole combinations of different governments
00:19:34.720
and tax rates have been tried in the post-war period. None of them ever get above the mid-30s
00:19:42.560
as a total proportion of tax taken. And we are at the upper limit now. If you try and tax beyond this
00:19:50.960
point, what people do is they just think sod it. I'll work less hours or I'll leave the country.
00:19:58.000
Huge numbers of wealthy Brits have been leaving the country because they just don't see any point in
00:20:02.720
continuing anymore. So more of them will go. And again, you can keep turning up those taxes. You'll
00:20:08.880
just increase the rate at which people leave. Or you increase the rate at which people think,
00:20:13.920
you know, whatever, I'll just make do with less. I won't buy a new car. I won't do this. I won't go
00:20:19.600
on holiday because my hotel was being taxed now, even in the UK. So I'll just cut back on all those
00:20:26.160
things that I otherwise would have done. Growth is dropping. And I'll just work less. I won't take
00:20:31.920
that extra shift. You know, I won't take that promotion, which is a little bit more money,
00:20:37.120
but a lot more headache. You know, I'll just stop out of this process. And there's almost certainly
00:20:42.480
the level that we are now. Quick define on our terms. GILTS, basically just UK government bonds.
00:20:50.400
It's a government IOU to the government. They sell them to investors. Investors give them money.
00:20:59.440
They use that money to spend more than they earn. The yield or the coupon is the price that the
00:21:05.600
government pays out every year on that. And that's a fixed amount, which is why the price of it
00:21:11.360
moves around. And bond vigilante is somebody who is, it's one of those sort of made up terms that they
00:21:18.160
use in the media, somebody who will attack governments. It's not really true. What's really
00:21:22.960
happening there is that there are people who are looking for things that gives them a return.
00:21:30.240
And if the deal is unattractive, they simply walk away from that deal. Bond vigilante is not a term I
00:21:34.480
like at all, but you see it a lot in the media. What's the big picture? How do we get here?
00:21:41.280
So think back to the pre-2008 era, because 2008 was a pivotal moment in this. You go back to the mid 70s,
00:21:51.680
government debt was about 50 billion. By 2008, that had gone up tenfold. It was about 550 billion,
00:21:59.280
11 fold. Now that was high. That looked like we had a bit of a problem then, but it was nothing
00:22:05.360
compared to what comes next. After 2008, that 550 billion goes to 1.8 trillion, a massive increase.
00:22:16.800
2008 was a real milestone. I often say that the great reset has already happened. It happened in 2008.
00:22:29.200
So debt spiralled up to up to 1.8 trillion. And then in just a few years after that,
00:22:36.880
by 2020, beginning of the COVID era, you got that debt level of 1.8 trillion.
00:22:42.400
Astonishing amount of money. And beyond that, that spiralled up by another trillion on top.
00:22:47.680
So we're now sat just below 3 trillion. And we know where the labor budget is going to take us.
00:22:53.600
It's going to take us to north 3.5 trillion in debt. At just below 3 trillion, that's the level of,
00:23:02.080
that's basically 100% of GDP. So both debt and GDP are at the same level. It doesn't make the
00:23:08.080
maths easier because at that point, it's a simple question. What is growing more? Well, the debt is
00:23:15.520
very easy to work out how much that's growing. It's growing by the rate on the debt. The thing that
00:23:20.640
we've been talking about is growing by the coupon, which is on 30-year debt, now well north of 5.5%.
00:23:28.720
On 10-year debt, it's about 5%. So you know, over here, this thing measured at 100% is growing at 5%.
00:23:37.840
But the economy, what level is that growing up? Because if it's not 5%, then that means this thing
00:23:44.160
is just going to eat the other thing. This thing is going to get smaller while this thing gets smaller.
00:23:47.840
If the rate that this is going is not beaten by the level that this is growing. And it's not.
00:23:53.280
GDP growth is basically non-existent. It's negligible. If you would like to see the full
00:23:59.040
version of this premium video, please head over to lotuseaters.com and subscribe to gain full access