• Privacy policy
  • T&C’s
  • About Us
    • FAQ
    • Meet the Team
  • Contact us
TLE ONLINE SHOP!
  • TLE
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sport
  • Opinion
  • Elevenses
  • Entertainment
    • All Entertainment
    • Film
    • Lifestyle
      • Horoscopes
    • Lottery Results
      • Lotto
      • Thunderball
      • Set For Life
      • EuroMillions
  • Food
    • All Food
    • Recipes
  • Property
  • Travel
  • Tech/Auto
No Result
View All Result
The London Economic
SUPPORT THE LONDON ECONOMIC
NEWSLETTER
  • TLE
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sport
  • Opinion
  • Elevenses
  • Entertainment
    • All Entertainment
    • Film
    • Lifestyle
      • Horoscopes
    • Lottery Results
      • Lotto
      • Thunderball
      • Set For Life
      • EuroMillions
  • Food
    • All Food
    • Recipes
  • Property
  • Travel
  • Tech/Auto
No Result
View All Result
The London Economic
No Result
View All Result
Home Business and Economics

The Chancellor has picked the wrong moral hazard

Rishi Sunak has two competing moral and economic issues at play, but has he picked a fight with the wrong one?

David Sefton by David Sefton
2020-04-29 19:36
in Business and Economics
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmailWhatsapp

There is a creeping suspicion that the Chancellor may have waged war with the wrong moral hazard in his bid to keep the economy afloat during these turbulent times.

Murmurings amongst the Tory ranks has led him to adopt the stance that he should not be wasting taxpayer money on propping up bad businesses.

At the weekend he explained that this was an important factor behind the structure of the government’s schemes: “We should not ask the ordinary taxpayers of today and tomorrow to bear the entire risk of lending almost unlimited sums to businesses that in some cases may have very little prospect of paying the loans back, and not necessarily because of the impact of the coronavirus”.

His view is supported by most Tory MPs, but are they right?

Two competing moral issues

In fact there are two competing and incompatible moral and economic issues at play here:

First, is the one expressed by Sunak, namely that the government should not overrule the market by propping up failing companies. 

There are obvious practical objections in being guided by this policy at the moment. 

RelatedPosts

What cost of living crisis? Huge pay packet of Tesco boss revealed

‘Historic’: Union hails recognition deal with food delivery giant Deliveroo

Good time for a trade war? UK economy shrank by 0.1% in March as recovery slows

Rich get richer? Pay surge in City fuels new rise in earnings inequality

All businesses are reeling from an unprecedented and unexpected economic collapse, with Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s spending watchdog, which said that GDP would fall by 35 per cent in the second quarter. 

The contraction also includes structural dislocation as some sectors are affected more by the lockdown and will continue to be affected by social distancing even when the lockdown can be eased. 

In this situation, how does anyone tell what is a deserving small business and which should go to the wall?  It is an impossible task.

Preserving the economy and people’s livelihoods

But more fundamentally, there is a contrary moral and economic imperative at work here, which is to preserve the economy and people’s livelihoods. 

To do so has intrinsic worth, but is also critical to how quickly and successfully the economy can recover.

As explained in an earlier article here, every business that closes has a wider effect on the economy as suppliers lose demand and workers become benefit claimants. 

This death spiral effect will be the cause of much suffering and regret if we allow it to take hold. 

Therefore, on this imperative, the government should do as much as it can to enable all firms (“good” or “bad”) to survive until such time as normality resumes and the market can once again decide.

Further, in normal circumstances, when a business fails, the employees look for new jobs or start new businesses and the suppliers look for new customers.  Patently that is much more difficult to do at the moment, hence another reason not to allow companies to fail.

Do not allow companies to fail

So, if there are competing imperatives, which is the more important?

It is obvious: due to (important and correct) government restrictions and policies the macro-market of the economy is not functioning in a normal manner, and so jobs and businesses must be preserved.  If the price of this is that the odd “bad” company buys a few extra months of survival then so be it. 

Better that, and a stronger economic future for the country, than thousands of businesses and millions of workers are sacrificed on the altar of an over-rigid market theology.

Related: These are the companies profiting from the COVID economic collapse

Tags: headline
Please login to join discussion

Since you are here

Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.

Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.

Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.

If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.

To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.

The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.

The shop can be found here.

You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .

Subscribe to our Newsletter

View our  Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions

Trending on TLE

  • All
  • trending
Abdollah

‘Rescue us’: Afghan teacher begs UK to help him escape Taliban

CHOMSKY: “If Corbyn had been elected, Britain would be pursuing a much more sane course”

What If We Got Rid Of Prisons?

More from TLE

Four out of five Brits don’t care about the environment at Xmas

Some members of royal family ‘have been behaving like free riders’ – any ideas who?

Custodian REIT buys Next distribution unit

Film Review: A Quiet Place

Matt Hancock trends as he gets jerked into garden party affair

Hope for teen battling cancer after family raise £340,000

Huddersfield Town put Premier League season tickets on sale for just £100

Satire, Sundance and Stalin: An Interview With Composer Christopher Willis

Family’s tribute to ‘fantastic granddad’ who died trapped on top of 270ft chimney

Anti-vaxxers boycott Tesco over double jabbed Santa in Christmas ad

About Us

TheLondonEconomic.com – Open, accessible and accountable news, sport, culture and lifestyle.

Read more

© 2019 thelondoneconomic.com - TLE, International House, 24 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2BN. All Rights Reserved.




No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Lifestyle
  • Food
  • Travel
  • More…
    • Elevenses
    • Opinion
    • Property
    • Tech & Auto
  • About Us
    • Meet the Team
    • Privacy policy
  • Contact us

© 2019 thelondoneconomic.com - TLE, International House, 24 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2BN. All Rights Reserved.