|
A long time ago, in a Galaxy, far, far away, people understood the concept of
thrift.
If there was a thing which cost more than they could immediately afford, they
economized elsewhere on their budget and - slowly, but surely - built up their
savings until that last triumphant day when the item they so cherished could
at last be bought.
Thus, there was a world where the great mass of the people were savers, not
spenders, and creditors, not debtors.
Naturally, these people found inflation abhorrent and so their political masters
were usually forced to heed them and to allow their money - usually based on
gold by the legislative endorsement of the people's own free choice - to appreciate
a little in value (something we, today, foolishly abjure as 'deflation').
This would happen, in those halcyon days, through the benign means that most
of those savings would be temporarily invested in making tools and equipment,
which in turn helped make Nature even more bountiful and honest labour even
more fruitful.
Because people were prudent and because money was hard, governments found
wars difficult to finance and thus they tended to be limited in scope and certainly
never involved the mindless slaughter of millions, in the manner we know all
too well in our time.
Furthermore, the concept of state-mandated welfare to replace the exercise
of private, voluntary charity toward the truly needy was an anathema not to
be reckoned with either, and so there were few inducements to abandon a proud
self-reliance, or to forego the warm glow of community-based altruism whenever
it was required.
Thus there was peace, free trade and liberty - on balance - for a brief flowering
of days.
There was also an upsurge in prosperity and general well-being as had never
been seen in all history
Though there were such things as central banks - in one or two, but not all,
countries - their role was usually to manage what relatively little government
debt there was and - occasionally - to put interest rates up (NEVER to force
them down) to stop gold draining out of the country when what little inflation
could arise under this system made imports temporarily too cheap and exports
too expensive.
Even then, this positive action was only a reinforcement, an intensification,
of what would naturally have occurred as the outflow of specie served to contract
credit in the overheated region and to expand it in the cooler one, automatically
governing the flows through adjusting relative prices in the free market.
As such, even this intervention hardly represented the sort of uninterrupted
meddling with which we are so sadly familiar.
So, now move on through space and time to the world of today, where money
is what the government says it is, where credit is created effortlessly at
the touch of a keyboard and where personal borrowing, to take just the UK as
an example, rises by 1% of income every month, far outstripping any residual
saving being undertaken.
This is a world where Total and, a sorry novelty this, PERPETUAL wars are
waged.
A world where the only argument about the £40 billion spent on the socialized
and perennially underachieving (a tautology, I know) health service, or the £400
billion or so spent in total by the State each year (a sum approaching two-thirds
of all payroll outlays), is not whether to do it, but merely how
best to.
A world where personal freedoms are daily undermined to the benefit of the
great Collective at the centre and where responsibilities are submerged under
rights - and not the natural rights inherent to Man's existence under heaven,
either, but only those revocably and expediently granted by the grace of those
who happen to be in power at the moment.
Now this may seem a long preamble, but a general appreciation of where we
are is indispensable to an understanding of the specifics which affect us in
our daily lives.
Thus, for example, as symptom of this crazy world we have fashioned for ourselves,
we see that, on this side of the Atlantic, a Mr. Bob Jackson, the chief executive
of the Cambridge Building Society (a UK S&L-type institution) last week
told a meeting of business leaders that the present credit inflation has so
distorted property values that many potential first-time buyers could not afford
a deposit on a home.
So, should they follow the example of their grandparents and wait until they
have saved enough (something which might also have the effect of bringing those
prices a little closer to where they can afford them)?
No, don't be silly!
The BBC reported that the good Mr Jackson - anxious to keep up his flagging
business volumes, no doubt - suggested that to reverse the rapid fall in the
numbers of first-timers, these would-be homeowners should turn to their parents
and ask them to reduce one of the few assets they hold not to have plummeted
in value of late, by getting them to re-mortgage their own homes for the purpose.
"Most of the young people we see need a lot of help to get a mortgage
and we as parents have benefited from the rise in property values over the
years, so it is up to us to help them," Mr Jackson said.
Mr Jackson suggested that parents could act as guarantors for their children's
mortgages or even borrow against the increased value of their own home to raise
money for a deposit.
As independent financial adviser Colin Jackson pointed out to the BBC, this
was a suggestion fraught with danger.
"Acting as a guarantor can be dangerous as ultimately you could end up
losing your home if the person you are acting as guarantor for defaults on
their payment," he told BBC News Online.
"As for re-mortgaging, many parents are unwilling to do this as it involves
taking on extra debt at a time when they may be nearing retirement," the
financial adviser said.
Quite.
But, hey, all this gloom and doom is surely misplaced in any case?
After all, following up on what was agreed behind closed doors at the Bank
for International settlements last month and what he himself told us would
be the case in his interview with the Times last week, the Bank of England's
new Governor, Mervyn King, ended his first policy meeting by delivering the
ninth rate cut of the cycle, pushing the level down to 3.5%.
So now, with the rate at a five-decade low and at its slimmest margin over
the officially-measured pace of price increases in twenty years, things are
bound to improve, aren't they?
Aren't they?
Oh, well. At least Mum and Dad won't have to fork out quite so much on the
repayments when they risk the security of their retirement by indulging their
kids' impatience to plunge into the last gasp of the housing bubble.
This demonstration that American policy makers have no monopoly on error should
keep Mr Black laughing all the way to the building society, but the rest of
us might be more inclined to grimace at this pernicious deprecation of thrift.
|