Friday 9 November 2012

GDP is only useful when . .

GDP measures how many 'units' one years value is divided into. Nothing more.

We calculate GDP by adding the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services.

In reality, if we are going to try and get some worth while measurement, one that relates just a little to how much money, not value, the mean average person in the country gets out of what they do then we need do this sum.

% GDP change - % population change - inflation.


So lets put some optimistic pre-2008 figures in


(GDP growth 1%) - (Population growth 0.6%) - (Inflation 2%)


That's -1.6% that we get out of what we do (if we count tax advice as getting) hardly progress is it.


The current situation is more like


(GDP growth 0.7%) - (Population growth 0.7%) - (Inflation 2.5%)


So -2.5% per year.


This figure is historically negative so ruling parties ignore it.



But even GDP taking into account inflation and population is is just a load of old twaddle unless we include value.

Much if what is included in GDP is of no value.

Lets say someone like you buys a bomb and blows up your house.
The bomb is manufactured, your house is rebuilt. The legal work, admin, tax calculations. It all had no value.  There is plenty of GDP.

What else has no or negative value in our economy?

The PPI insurance fiasco.  Marketing it, sending out letters and training staff to sell it. FSA decides it's a bit mean five years too late. Companies buy tele sales data and cold call people who may have been miss sold PPI in a bid to win the legal fees. All these people needed a place to do their work, transportation, electricity, computers etc. No value


Land Lord. If someone owns homes they do not need then the need for homes goes up, making them less affordable. Other must pay inflated property prices plus bank interest for the owners unwanted service. The landlords pointless annoying role has to check the condition of the property because they still own it and those occupying therefore have no personal insensitive to maintain it. The tenant  never builds a nest egg the landlord uses it to grow the problem. GDP, negative value.

Speculative land owner. If someone buys land with the view to gaining planning permission and selling it on or holding land it in an area where the land value is likely to increase in value then their profit is simply debt passed onto new home owners house prices GDP or land owners. No Value. Since the property is bought on debt we then have additional unwanted interest payments and other 'services'.

Land change of use. The UK is a net importer of food. with an assumed 1.2 acres of farm land needed per person the UK's 45 million acres is not going to cut it. this means that the GDP we gain now from changing farm land into property has a long lasting negative effect. Effectively taking on a lifetime of resource import debt for future generations. High GDP, off the books real monetary local debt.

All resource consumption and damage caused by mining. 
If the over all effect of mining a reusable resource is unsustainable damage to the environment then that is again a debt that does not show up  in the deficit.
If the resource is consumable then again we are literally spending reserves. The off the books deficit is huge.

Many bank activities. Hedging, credit default swaps, encouraging, 'Buy Now Pay Twice Later' on people who will be poorer in the long run. No value.  Factor in fractional reserve banking and that all wealth must reside somewhere and it is clear that the systems we have in place have allowed market forces to turn ursery into the backbone of economies who leaders profess to believe in god.

And while all this false GDP is being created we are running a deficit. There should be no deficit. On and off the books combined. We should aim for a national profit just like the companies who's representatives run the government.

Greater value would be created if people did not undertake these GDP activities and left the workforce.


With the gift of time those people may have become active members of the 'Big Society'. Bringing happiness and taking the strain from state resources. This has 'Value'.

They may have restored items to a greater value and not have traveled so far twice a day in the rush. Saving on consumption.

They would have cared for their home during the day and perhaps shared a mutual appreciation in the evening with their wife or husband.

They would not have been doing something they hate 40 hours / week. Being unhappy should be the main negative value.


Where would they live, how would they eat without money? 

This is the crazy thing. If they had done nothing of value and yet the value resources were available in that economic model then where did the resources go? 

Those 'value' resources were still produced by value creators. 

The GDP figure is simply the calculation for distribution of available value. The higher the figure, the less each unit of value is worth in money (inflation).

Many hopeless unfortunates correctly choose to give up on working as part of the system. For them the sums will now never add up. Even if they give 100%, which is no way to live and should not be necessary. They raise a family with their hand out and a swelling bitterness at the injustice of it all. And the cycle continues.

A GDP model in the absence of strict banking rules results in debt.
A GDP model in the absence of wealth distribution rules results in poverty for most.
A GDP model in the absence of sustainability rules results in accelerated consumption.
A GDP model in the absence of enforced political integrity result in lax rules.

The above result in hardship to breaking point then painful revolution.

How can we fix this?

Step 1 is to get vested interests out of politics. Be part of a simple and painless revolution on the 28th of August visit www.goodegg.org.uk. Put it in your calander now.

An MP should be treated like any other full time company director with incentives for reaching their goals. The question is what should those goals be?

Increase GDP? No!

Here are some ideas.
  • Reliable prompt health care.
  • Breathing space.
  • Comfort and security.
  • Sustainability. 
  • The number of hours per day the lowest paid workers must work per week to meet their needs, insure against illness and contribute toward society.
If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics visit www.NoCheapPromises.org. Its time for a new breed of politician and the electorate will have to force the change.


Click here to read a comic about two kids, an island and GDP.

Great explanation of GDP measurement. 

I'd love to see a real  GDP survey response from a bank. Remember #Libor. I doubt 'what counts' is clear cut and there is big money to be made in the markets.

Here is one way we can start taming the life consuming beast that is GDP.









Building houses will not make them more affordable . . yet.

"Silly Kaz. It's supply and demand. You make more to meet demand and then prices some down. Economics 101".

This is true. But lets look back at what caused the increase in house price rises. Was it the demand for a home . . or the demand for an investment?

In the mid 90's property started to sky-rocket. But something had happened. Banks started lending more. Then an investment phenomenon took place. What was once reserved for the social elite became a game all would play. If you buy a house and rent it out you can re-mortgage in two years and buy another one using the increase in value as a deposit, and rent that out . . and so on and so on.

This lasted nearly just over years.

In the rush anyone looking to purchase or upgrade their property would stretch as far as they could go, why not, the more they borrowed the more they would profit from percentile property value increases.

Some of us re-mortgaged out some money for improvements a few years later? I paid the lion share of my wedding and got some double glazing. Property inflation became an income.

2008 comes and where is the big crash with properties for perhaps 15% below their peak, still massively over valued in relation to salaries, and build costs, but any lower and the banks safe deposit of housing will be too small. Having lent out 10 x real money in circulation (see fractional reserve banking) there was simply not enough money in actual existence to cope with any shrinkage.

So house prices will be kept high.

Exportable labor salaries will shrink towards those of the most down trodden globally.

The rich and developers will acquire land and do whatever it takes to change its usage rights to as many residential units as possible, each and every unit permit being worth £100k+.

Houses are not going to get cheaper, and the way planning works means a few already rich investors will pocket the overspend of new home owners.

The simple way of eliminating spin and corruption led development is for a council to choose strategic locations and compulsory purchase them for what they are worth without planning permission. Then invite developers to bid for the public consultation and and design phase.
Then invite businesses to bid for various aspect of the build.

The profit to the councils will be smaller than the efficiency of the developer, but efficiency and 1 person getting rich is not a good thing.

The council should get a bit more money towards infrastructure and smaller local companies will be able to get in on the act in a sustainable manner.

Building houses will not make them cheaper, with this planning permission system the money just makes the rich richer and encourages corruption.






Land tax - wealth wax. The for, the against and the for again

I've been arguing for a wealth tax since I first got politically active.

The argument comes down to economics and ethics including from from the perspective or the landowner.

Economics is easy.

Land value tax at first seems complicated regarding farmers etc. The lets say 1% cost will be passed on. I think, if the the money finds it's way to those who can not afford then that is fine and it can.

The cost will also be passed on by private landlords. That is why we need the right2buy extended to the private sector. If you have rented a house, field, office for two years and the landlord is taking too much cream whilst providing only a unnecessary middle man between you and the bank then ...

1. Our economy can not afford the inefficiency. We need less people being paid well for doing nothing of value.
2. The non landlord majority should not tolerate this method of profiteering or perpetual hereditary land titles.

The argument against 

My land wealth hoarding gambling friends, who are nice caring people by the way, simply do not comprehend the hardship 'start from scratch'ers are facing. They are also not willing to accept how significantly that it ties in with their favourite game 'how much will I pass on when I die'.

Anyway. The argument against, especially from people who started their own successful wealth creating business before moving into asset retention and inheritance strategy is... 

"Why should I have to pay more, I already pay more on income tax, it's mine."

The answer

Firstly. I personally do not think you should be expected to pay more income tax as a percentage, (And you don't anyway do you. You sneaky so and so ;)). I'm happy for us to make loads of money getting people working earning what they need in less than 40 hours / week, or create solutions so people need work less to do their resulting fair share.

Regarding taxing your estate. Why don't all the people who are paying too much in mortgage debt or rent just not do it just go and live on your land or take your home by force

The reason is that we have a legal ownership system and it is enforced.

Our wealth in this country is protected by the men and women of the armed forces and police most of whom are all the poorer for protecting your estate.

As the cycle continues our grandchildren will hold theirs to the same random, legally devoid of tax in trusts be them off shore or here.

The cost to quality of life, for both.

Their children will miss out on the best things in life which are free, working too many hours trying to fund themselves and our estate growth + what we collectively squander.

Our grandchildren will miss out on having made something of themselves if they survive all the sex and drugs.

So changing the ownership system to tax hoarded wealth, especially in the form of rental properties and rented farm land is not only fairer to those who defend it for us, fairer on the majority for whom our MPs who in effect are Trustees supposed make the law work in benefit of, but on the decedents of the fortunate who will actually build character having a little hardship, and empathy with the majority who are actually their equals.

I welcome innovation and commerce. The lord of the land is not an innovation. It is old custom come back to haunt us.

That is why, as a landlord myself, and someone who will continue to attempt to purchase land and place in trust for my beneficiaries so long as it is the easiest way to secure wealth, I will back any motion to give the right to tenants to purchase their rented properties / land at the mid value between when the moved in and the current market value. #Right2BuyPrivate


On a separate note, it would also be a great moment to scrap inheritance tax. The wealth will be taxed over time in manageable pieces instead. Few wealthy land / business owners pay it anyway causing more wasteful work for tax advisers like John Redwood MP. Those maintaining strategies to help us avoiding paying tax. He should instead spend time actually wealth creating, trying to improve the 'quality of life' index if he is so clever. And if not then there is always the 'Big society'.

If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics visit www.smart-voter.org