All we need now is Spandau Ballet

              I am sat writing this the evening before the first full budget of our 2nd Tory chancellor of the last 20 years, Philip Hammond MP. We have now had a full 6 years of Tory chancellors - even if for 5 of those they were supported in Parliament by a weak and ineffective coalition partner in the Lib Dems. So, it is probably worth looking at how well those Tory chancellors and governments have done for us. By us, I mean the great British working classes. I include in that those of us lucky enough to be working, and those of us who for whatever reason can't or aren't working at the moment. It is also right and fair to measure those chancellors against what they set out as their own priorities. After all, it is not fair to only measure them against things they never promised to do.

              Like most economists (and other political writers) it would be really easy for me to fall into jargon and measures that most people don't understand. Who really feels GDP, deficit, debt ratios? Whilst I want to steer clear of these as much as possible - they are necessary to consider. Mainly because these were the measures which George Osborne and then Philip Hammond have measured themselves against. But there are other measures that they feed into - and these do matter. These are how well-off we as individuals feel, and the future prospects for the economy. As well as these, there are other factors that matter - how well funded and effective our public services are; how much tax we pay and how many of us are in gainful employment.

              Coming into power in 2010 was never going to be easy for any government. The world was still reeling from a financial crisis, caused by global banks, that was as severe as The Great Depression. This was impacting pretty much every country - though some worse than others. In the UK because we had bailed out the banks here we had a massive public sector debt (the amount the government owes) that had risen from under 40% to around 65% a the time of the General Election. This was the worst of all worlds - it was driven by an increasing amount of debt from bailing out the banks, a shrinking economy and a growing deficit. The deficit or surplus is the difference between how much the government is earning (basically through taxation) compared to how much it spends (on services for the people). 

             So whichever Chancellor came in had to do one (or all) of 3 things - grow the economy, reduce the deficit and / or reduce the overall debt the government had. The prevailing idea from George Osborne (and presumably supported at that point by the public) was to reduce the deficit, within 5 years, and thereby start to pay down the debt levels. Surely we could return to surplus? After all, we had run a surplus for the overwhelming majority of the Blair years, after the deficit laden years of the Thatcher government. This therefore gave rise to the austerity agenda - the aim being to reduce how much the government spent to get in line with what they earned. 

             But the Tories also inherited a number of other problems and benefits at that time. For example, we had an NHS that was the best in the world, as proven by a number of international comparative studies. This was not only in terms of the service provided, but also how much it cost to provide. Gone were the days of waiting on trolleys in corridors. We had improved standards across schools. Whilst not all of the policies used were particularly popular, they were, mostly, working. Sure Start and EMA were supported by all parties as right and necessary because of the benefits to social well-being. The unemployment rate however had taken a marked increase - meaning fewer people were working - whilst this had stayed stable around the 5% mark for the majority of the Blair years this shot up as a result of the global banking crisis to 7.5%. This had been a massive improvement - during the Thatcher years it had been between 7.5% and 10% for almost the entire period. 

            So across those areas, how have the Tories done? Well, let's look at deficit and debt reduction, unemployment, amount we pay in tax, and those services mentioned above one at a time. 

Debt & Deficit

Since 2010, the debt as a share of GDP (the most reliable measure) has increased from 65% to 85%. In money terms, these 6 years have added £1trillion of debt. That is debt which our government must now pay back. More worryingly, the deficit is still at 3%. We were meant to be rid of both of those things by now. In fact, neither has been delivered on. We are worse off than we were. 

Unemployment

Here, it appears, we have good news. The unemployment rate has seen a steady downward trend. It has moved from a recent high of 8.5% to 4.8%. We should all be celebrating, shouldn't we? Well, it isn't quite so rosy. 700,000 of those new jobs are zero hours contracts. That is 700,000 people who don't know if they will have work from one day to the next. We may as well go back to the days of the Labour exchange. Workers earnings have not increased - which you would expect from high employment. More people can say they have a job, but more than ever don't have enough money coming in to actually survive. So we must remain cautious if we want to say this is good news.

Taxation

The level of government taxation - ie how much they take out of the economy each year to pay for public services has now increased back to levels last seen in 1986. So whilst they have spectacularly failed to reduce the deficit, they have done that whilst taking more of your money from you. Not only that, but the source of that tax has become far less friendly for you. Much less is being taken from big businesses and wealthy individuals. Instead, more tax is being taken from your wallet, by way of increases in VAT and Insurance Premium Tax. They have openly and actively taken from the poor to give to the rich. A true reverse Robin Hood. 

Public services

Well, Sure Start and EMA didn't survive the first year under the Tories. Our health service is once again falling apart. This winter we had the worst performance during the winter since we started measuring such things. Junior doctors went out on strike - previously unheard of. In education there are experts, councillors (of all parties), headteachers and MPs screaming at the government to address the lack of funding. What it the response of the current government? To instead set aside money for their pet project of grammar schools and free schools. Just consider that, any extra money they find is not going to your child's school - but to open a new one that you have no say over. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves, and recruitment of new ones is drying up. We are back to poor services where only the wealthy will be okay. 

                  So, it is amazing that we find ourselves here again. A government that can't get spending under control, where services are so poor they are a laughing stock, where only the wealthy are benefitting. Things haven't been this bad across so many measures since the early 1980s. Some would argue that there are other similarities - for example a Labour leader who is painted as a dangerous leftie by the media and who doesn't seem either willing or able to shake off the tag. What is worrying is that against this backdrop the Tories are still enjoying electoral success. This really should be a wake up call and warning to the Labour Party. The question is whether they are listening - or repeating the internal fights of the 1980s. Only time will tell. The problem is, how much of a country will we have left at the end of it?

Step right up, now everyone’s a winner, bargains galore.

Thank goodness for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. There was I, worried that leaving the European Union might in some way be bad for our economy, workers’ rights and public sector, when they come along and show me that everything is going to be OK. Of course it is not just the US. Apparently, countries are queueing up to do trade deals with us. We now thankfully have some greater clarity on what Theresa May plans for her brexit strategy. So, what can we take from her announcement yesterday? And how bright is the future looking for us? Can we get ready for a massive influx of trade we don’t currently have? Is the prospect of a Global Britain better than the prospect of a “Shared Britain” (now removed) or a “Red, White and Blue Brexit” (now removed) or is it just another meaningless slogan?

Really, we need to understand from the speech what we are potentially losing compared to what we might gain. That is the only way we can judge whether we are looking at a net positive or a net negative. This was the most important speech that the Prime Minister has given since we voted for her to be our leader. Only joking of course, we live in a parliamentary democracy where elected representatives are chosen and entrusted to make our decisions for us. Well apart from THAT decision obviously. So, the most important speech since her party voted for her to be party leader and therefore Prime Minister. Only joking, there was no vote for her. So, the most important speech she has given since 35,000 in the borough of Maidenhead voted for her (that’s right Americans, you think you have problems).

I am going to focus purely on the aspects relating to trade and the economy. There was actually some good stuff in there, relating to how the process will run, and also massively important areas around immigration and nationality, borders and governance. But that will have to be part of another blog. So what did we learn? Well the key points were these:

·         All existing rules and regulations of the EU will become British Law and workers’ rights will be protected, then will “keep pace with the changing Labour Market”

·         We will leave the single market, and the customs union then “pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement” with the EU

·         We might pay to be a part of “specific European programmes”

·         If we don’t get the deal we want with the EU, we will trade with them without a trade agreement

·         We will seek out new trade deals with other partners that we don’t currently have in place

Keeping existing rules and regulations, and workers protections

                So, depending on your point of view, keeping existing safety and consumer laws is a good thing or a bad thing. It will mean that we can continue to export to mainland Europe because our goods and services will be comparable. But it might also mean that we are held to a higher level of regulation than say US or Chinese manufacturers. Therefore, this could make our products uncompetitive on a global market. So this really depends on whether we get a trade agreement with the EU.

                More worryingly, is the specific language used around workers’ rights. This should be a massive big warning sign to everybody who is employed in the UK. Over the last 6 years the Tories (and their coalition partners) have overseen the stripping away of workers’ rights, and have resisted every opportunity to improve them. For example, even at the height of the furore over zero hours contracts, the government did nothing. Coupled with that our rights to strike have been eroded, weakening our bargaining power with companies. And senior members of the government are openly talking about banning the use of strikes across industries.

                Mrs May could have said that workers’ rights would be improved upon, or strengthened. But the language is purposefully specific. “Keeping pace with the changing Labour Market”. Well, if we look at how the Labour market is changing, more people are being put in to roles where their employers can pretend they are self-employed; employers can give up any sort of responsibility through the “gig” economy; zero hours contracts will become more prevalent; trade unions will be downgraded and weakened at every turn; pensions agreements will no longer be stuck to by employers whilst taxpayers bail out pensions funds. Basically, if you are employed, then this is the start of a bonfire of what rights you currently have. If you are applauding this speech, you are either an employer yourself, or not paying attention. Perhaps somebody could remind me, when we voted for the UK to leave the European Union, where we also voted to give up our working rights to Sir Philip Green and Mike Ashley? I obviously ticked that box without realising.

Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, getting a trade deal with Europe instead, paying for access

                It is probably worth, as a starting point, understanding what our trade deal within Europe currently means. Firstly, it is worth stating that it is probably the most comprehensive, invasive and wide-ranging multi-lateral trade agreement in the world. It includes everything from free trade (meaning we trade our goods free from tariffs being applied by other countries), customs union (meaning we all apply the same tariffs to goods coming from outside our deal), free movement (of services, capital and resource ie people) and a level of political union too. It covers almost every aspect of trade and commerce, industry and services, import and export. The effort to split ourselves out from it is on a scale unprecedented and untried. It is not simply rhetoric to say it is of the scale that countries leaving the USSR and Eastern-bloc felt during the early 90s.

                So we would be leaving, with great difficulty and cost a free-trading bloc of 450 million people in 27 states (once you take us out of the official figures). It has GDP of US$13tn (again once you take us away from the published figures). It is 41km away from us at the closest point. Those are the really key considerations in any trading deal we want to do: how many individual consumers are there, how wealthy is it, how far away is it, and what tariffs would we expect. It is worth also stating that given the depth and breadth of the negotiations that will be needed, this will (you would hope) require a great deal of considered and careful negotiation. We currently have no experience of trade negotiations, given that we haven’t had to for about 40 years. It seems a reasonable assumption that what experience we can muster together will be focussed on this deal. Two years of effort to LEAVE that free trade deal.

                Of course, it is possible that we could end up with an even better trade deal. However, it is highly improbably. By its very nature, if we are choosing to say to a trading bloc that have grown together “we want to trade with you, but don’t wish to pay in to your structural costs” then it is only reasonable to assume we will get a worse deal than full membership. Even Theresa May accepts that. Hence why the Prime Minister and others have been warming us up to the idea that we will still have to pay something to continue to trade freely in certain markets. I think it is fair to assume this will include the Motor industry (if not, then what the hell have we promised Nissan?) and financial services (given it is our biggest single industry). Of course, that gives us the question of what will the cost be? How much will we have to pay for access? Not only that, does it mean any industry which isn’t beloved of the Tories (Steel, manufacturing, non-financial services) should now expect tariffs to start to affect their business. So there we have it, a deal where we still pay in (when it suits the Tories) and everybody else has their business negatively impacted.

                Not only that, but what if we start imposing our own tariffs on European goods? Well, that will lead to massive instantaneous inflation, whilst at the same time our economy is getting worse. We had this in the 1970s – and the term which was coined was stagflation – a stagnant economy whilst prices rise. It was a horrific time. If you are too young to remember it be grateful, then ask somebody who was around how it felt.

No deal is better than a bad deal, trade deals with other parties

                Of course, we could choose to have no trade deal at all with Europe. However, just the most cursory glance at this shows how completely stupid and damaging this would be. This would mean that we would immediately start trading with ALL of the European Union at WTO Tariff rates. In effect every single item that we export to Europe would immediately be less competitive, and therefore we would either have to sell less OR sell them more cheaply. The idea that no deal is better than a bad deal is complete hogwash – and everybody knows it. God even to export Oxygen to the EU we would have to pay a tariff of 5% - and they breath the bloody stuff (yes, I know, thanks). So this idea that we will go with No Deal is never going to happen. Besides which, in all honesty both parties want to get a deal. It is in their interest as well. It is entirely a PM trying to sound tough for the UKIP-leaning voters in her own party. It is simply within our interest to achieve some deal with Europe (popn 450m, GDP US$13tn, dist 40km) – and it is theirs to do a deal with us (popn 65m, GDP US$3tn, dist 40km).

                What about other deals? We are told by Boris Johnson that countries are “queueing up” to do a trade deal with us. Well, the first consideration is – why aren’t we trading with them currently? If these countries are so desperate to get a trade deal with us, why is that? Well, we already do trade with many of them. But it is at a lower level than perhaps we could. Therefore, any belief that this will lead to a massive influx of NEW trade is again erroneous. What it will do is make trade easier and therefore give some lift to our global trade levels. It might also (if we remove import tariffs) lead to consumers paying less for certain goods. It is way beyond me to be able to state with any certainty what scale the impact would be. But it would need to be very high indeed to offset any major losses of trade with the EU. I am going to leave the US to one side for a moment, but still, let’s pick out some of the options which do look like “live picks” ie countries that are talking about trading with us:

Country	Population	Size of economy	Distance	Comments
EU	450m	US$13.1tn	41km
Iceland	0.3m	US$0.016tn	1,894km
India	1,300m	US$8.72tn	7,194km
New Zealand	4.7m	US$0.174tn	18,500km
Australia	24m	US$1.2tn	17,000km
Canada	36m	US$1.5tn	5,700km
Ghana	27m	US$0.121bn	4,800km
Mexico	120m	US$2.2tn	9,000km
South Korea	50m	US$1.4tn	9,000km
Total	1,562m	US$15.3tn	9,136km average

                So, if the worst happened and we stopped all trade with the EU (which no-one is suggesting, to replace it we would need to trade with these 8 separate economies to get a trading block of the same size. Ignoring the fact that on average that would mean sending goods 45 times further on average to sell them.

                To put it another way, our trade with the EU accounts for 45% of our exports. If we lost a quarter of that export trade – on our doorstep – we would need to boost our sales internationally to non-EU countries by 11%. Unfortunately, our trade with international neighbours is already at record levels for us. What else are we going to sell – at a competitive price after sending it an extra 9,100 km? The very desperately sad thing is, we are already a successful trading nation. Is it really possible that not being part of a customs union with the EU is going to boost our trading with every we currently trade with across the board by over 10% BEFORE the end of the current deal with the EU in 2 years’ time?

                Who is going to negotiate these trade deals? Everyone with experience or knowledge will be working on the EU deal? Or should we leave that to Boris “let’s joke about the Nazis” Johnson? Genuinely? Of course, we have the trade deal to look forward to with the US. After all, we have been promised a trade deal by the President-Elect, a man who never goes back on what he says. Well, he has already threatened to pull out of NAFTA (a free trade deal), and put 35% import tariffs on goods from China and Mexico – 2 of their biggest trading partners and very strong economies. If Donald Trump is looking to trade on those terms with others, why would we believe we would get anything more beneficial?

Everything’s rosy

                There is no hard evidence to say that is all impossible. It may well be that against all odds the government manage to deliver. But for that to happen we would need a massive turnaround in fortunes, in abilities, in industry, in trade patterns and in the views of our own government. At the same time we would need the EU to be kind to us in any future trade deal. Put quite simply, the potential risks are much greater than the opportunities at the moment. I would love to be wrong about this – and I am often wrong. But I see no analysis which suggests anything other than this stark conclusion – by leaving the single market we are throwing away access to a strong market on a really good deal for the possibility of access to less accessible markets, with less good deals. This can only be bad for our economy. 52.1% of people voted for Brexit. But how many voted for an almost certain worsening of our economy, job losses, rights and protection losses, uncertainty and a weaker economy?

You can't trust Labour on the economy (updated since originally posted 15 months ago) Part 1

As the general election campaign for 2017 has now started in earnest, I have been locked away trying to understand the outcome from the Margaret Beckett report on why Labour lost the last election (http://press.labour.org.uk/post/137620361394/learningthelessons ). Now, whether you believe the report or not http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319 is entirely up to you. However, even without the additional analysis being included, one thing can be said with certainty – voters did not trust Labour with the economy. This has been borne out by my own un-scientific research – i.e. speaking to people on internet forums and social media. It is one of the most repeated phrases I hear and read from a whole spectrum of people. It is one of those "truths" that has become so because it has been so oft-repeated.

There will always be a subset of people who, no matter what can be proven, will decide that they will blindly vote Conservative. We have the same people in the Labour party and that is absolutely fine. People vote for their own reasons. If you are one of those people who hate the Labour party and will never look at evidence with a view to changing that position don’t read this. Use the time to do something useful – read something else, make a cup of tea, look after your children, speak to your life partner. That is fine. But I did want to consider that individual central tenet – that people did not trust Labour on the economy, and therefore wouldn’t vote Labour. I am going to try to extrapolate that too – should they trust Labour on the economy now or in the future.

In order to split this down we probably need to think about two things – firstly what is a “good” economy and what does that look like? Secondly, why should we trust a party? If we can answer those two, we should be able to put together a fairly strong case one way or the other. Just writing those two questions down outlines a whole host of problems, but let’s try and answer them.

What is a “good” economy?

So, the real difficulty with this is that there is not, and can not be a single definite answer to this. There are some broad areas of understanding, but nothing that we can concretely say “that right there is your answer”. Each individual will necessarily have their own view on this – and it will be coloured by their upbringing, their view on how the world works and what is important to them. We are after all a country of approx. 60 million single issue voters – that single issue being “what is important to me”.

From my perspective then (as a socialist) there are a number of measures of what makes a good economy. The key one is that the national economy should be measured on how that is used to provide a wellbeing for those people involved in and covered by the economy. A good economy would be one where: 

1. any growth in the economy benefits those who work for it;
2. it provides opportunities for everyone to participate and add to the economy whilst;
3. providing a reasonable level of protection from external shocks to the national economy and individual shocks through changes in circumstance

I don’t pretend this is the only answer. There are other things that we could look at - a key one being how the economy is used to look after members of society in need. There are I am sure many issues that this doesn’t address. As we will discuss, some of these items might even rub against each other in different directions. Lots of people would argue that some of those goals are impossible whilst we live in a capitalist system. It is the system we have at the moment and nobody has yet convinced the British public to rally together to change this system for an alternative one. Additionally there are some huge topics that I have left out – the Private Finance Initiative (PFI and PF2 which are the same thing) are a massive burden on this country. However, political parties of all hues are currently wedded to continue delivering them, so they don’t provide a difference between how they are treated. This is a massive topic and the subject of so much unknown and unknowable that it has its own Nobel Prize. To expect me to do justice to it in a blog is probably asking too much. Even with the simplified items above I am going to split this down into a couple of (hopefully easily digestible, probably completely incomprehensible) blogs to not completely frazzle people.

Should we trust a party to deliver?

The next question should then be: How do the last Labour administration and the current (including the coalition years) Conservative government stand on each of those measures? And how do we believe a Corbyn government would stand against those measures? Whilst this may be a little unfair (every government in waiting is brilliant until it gets in), we need to recognise that a Corbyn government would be very different to a Blair / Brown government. 

Well the first measure mentioned above on economic growth and fairness really requires two parts to it – one is a growing economy, and two that the benefits of that growth are shared amongst the actors within it. Whilst there are a range of indicators for a growing economy a useful one is GDP per capita. This shows the value of the outputs of an economy shared equally by the population of that economy. For the UK, this shows the following output (taken from https://knoema.com/atlas/United-Kingdom/GDP-per-capita ).

What you can see from this is that under the last Labour government the GDP per person was higher than it currently is at its high point. It also had a steeper growth – i.e. people were (on average) getting wealthier, faster. This changed in 2008 because of the sudden correction in the markets – caused by the banking crash. The key term there I feel is “correction”. Put simply the market growth was to some extent a myth, caused by a bubble of over-inflated house prices across the globe and reckless behaviour of banks and consumers around the world.

Can we blame Labour for this? I think there must be an element of realisation that for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown the key indicator for economic success was GDP growth. Therefore the worst excesses of the banks were missed at best or ignored and encouraged at worst. This lends to the suggestion that Labour can’t be trusted. In order for us to stick with that as a reason, we should also look at the behaviour of the Conservative party in office. If the property bubble and banker behaviour were key components of the sudden correction, then to trust the tories they would have to clearly demonstrate a different approach.  

I would say that quite clearly isn’t the case. In fact the light regulation that allowed this to happen is slowly returning. Despite the rhetoric about this at the time, the Conservative Party (funded by hedge fund managers and property tycoons http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899 ) is indeed pushing back on the regulation of the banks. Ring-fencing of banks (to protect consumers and the economy) has been watered down. There have been a plethora of new scandals SINCE the financial crash ( http://www.channel4.com/news/five-other-banking-scandals-since-2008 ) they have slowly stopped investigations and reviews into the current banking market. 

So, if you don’t trust Labour on the economy for this reason, you quite clearly can’t trust the Conservatives either. As an argument, it is nonsense. Oh, and if you think that they have at least made sure another housing bubble wont appear and burst, then forget about it (http://uk.businessinsider.com/roubini-the-mother-of-all-asset-bubbles-will-burst-in-2016-2014-12?r=US&IR=T and http://moneyweek.com/uk-property-market-could-be-in-trouble-after-the-2015-election/ ) – those risks are still there. Worryingly from the above graph we can see that rather than the Tories increasing GDP per capita it has fluctuated and is falling again - and this is before the impact of Brexit takes its toll. 

The next thing to consider from any growth in the economy benefits those who work for it is that it benefits those who work for it. To me, this means that the benefits are shared in line with hard work, effort and risk. That is impossible to measure on an individual basis. It is also massively unfair when we have different starting points. Instead a good measure of how the people in an economy are benefiting, and whether it is fairly or not, is something called a "gini-coefficient". If you wish to understand the maths behind it, then it can be readily understood from wikipedia. It basically measures how fairly income is shared amongst a population. This ties in with GDP above – as it measures the income in a period, in much the same way, and then looks at how income is spread between people. There are 2 extremes – but the lower the gini-coefficient the more equally money is shared between the people in the economy. Gini is calculated as between 0 (everyone gets the same) and 1 (1 person gets all of the income). As a co-efficient it is not useful on it's own - but is useful for comparing 2 things - such as different points in time, different countries or different governments.

In order to get a fair reading on this, then we must look at not only what the gini-coefficient was but how it has changed over time under each of these governments. So under the previous Blairite Labour administration, the gini co-efficient (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2013-2014/data--the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income--financial-year-ending-2014.xls ) after tax showed a gini-coefficient of 0.38 between 1997 and 2008 – this didn’t really move. Since the coalition government came to power there has actually been an improvement in income equality - the figure got lower to 0.36 up to the end of 2013/2014. This will be in large part due to the changes in taxation that was pushed through by the Liberal Democrats. 

What remains to be seen is how the changes enacted since then will impact through 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Although if you believe that trying to cut working families tax credits and battering disabled people’s payments will make income more equal then you have really missed the point. I would expect that the gini-coefficient starts to move back out sharply. After all, the current government have tried to remove income from their definition of poverty ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-plot-scrap-child-poverty-7244505 ). That can never be a good sign. Whilst we don't yet have the official figures for 2015-2016 (the first year of a solely Tory government), for 2014-2015 the gini coefficient has started to move out again - that is we are becoming less equal once again.

What we can't know is how this will change under a Corbyn led Labour government. However, we can look to the policies that have been unveiled already - investment in public works to kick-start the economey, higher taxes on large corporations and wealthy individuals, higher national minimum wage, a clampdown on tax avoidance and evasion and an end to using the benefits regime to punish the disabled and these would all point to an improvement in this measure (and all measures) of inequality. In fact, his first major speech of this election campaign has been entirely rooted in sharing wealth more equally. So, if we believe that he will be true to his word, this would suggest that on my first measure there would be an improvement in both GDP per capita and how that is shared. But, what we can already say based on the available, independent evidence shown above is this - the Conservative party are NO MORE trustworthy than the last Labour Government. That isn't opinion, that is clear fact when you consider the above. So don't let anyone suggest otherwise - without proving them wrong. 

Of course, this is only one measure, and I will look at the others in my next blog. An absolute key one is what state the economy and public finances are left in. This is another area where many believe what they are told in the media - that every Labour government bankrupts the national coffers if it is allowed to do so. But is this really true? Well, hopefully I can answer that point in my next blog.