Borrowing Britain
It’s one of the weirder aspects of the independence debate that the No campaign constantly shrieks about how an independent Scotland might run a deficit, as if that was some sort of unusual and terrifying state unique to Scotland. So we thought it might be handy to keep this clip from today’s BBC Breakfast here for future reference.
“Governments, certainly in the modern era, Western governments tend to be fundamentally permanent borrowers.” – Robert Stheeman, chief executive of the UK government Debt Management Office.
Of course, Scotland might well actually be one of the very few exceptions to that rule, particularly in the medium to long term. Research by respected economist Professor Brian Ashcroft suggests that the only reason Scotland runs a deficit as part of the UK is because it has to contribute billions of pounds a year towards repayment of UK debts that weren’t run up by Scotland.
(Funnily enough, the size of the current Scottish deficit, which “Better Together” claims to be £7.6bn and which takes no account of the different spending in an independent Scotland – eg the £1bn a year that could be saved on defence – is remarkably close to Scotland’s 8.4% population share of the UK’s current annual deficit of £85bn, which comes out at £7.1bn.)
But even if an independent Scotland was perpetually in deficit, that’s simply how normal countries work. It’s not in itself any great cause for alarm. The No camp knows that perfectly well, of course, but plays on the electorate’s lack of knowledge in order to fearmonger. We thank the BBC for such a clear and concise piece of debunking.
(Read more about Mr Stheeman’s work here and here.)
Saw that myself & thought same.
Wish BBC Scotchland would broadcast this material right before or right after all of Boothmans REF reporting BT propaganda – DANGER, WARNING, FEARS RAISED, BLACK HOLE IN WHITE PAPER rubbish in their carefully prepared (to shock & scare) news stories & political / ref coverage.
(Remember its BBC policy and part of their training programme, that its ok to sensationalise, – they do not have to tell the truth)
Gotta love that crazy map where Scotland has shrunk beyond any realistic depiction. Maybe it’s adjusted for debts.
Scottish land mass is roughly 79,000 km2
England roughly 130,000 km2
Some time ago, I set up a Google Alert for Scottish Independence. I checked up last week to see how many of these over the past year were ‘warnings’, and found that on average that I received 4.2 warnings per day!
Am I bovvered? Im not bovvered!
Scottish land mass is roughly 79,000 km2
England roughly 130,000 km2 – we’re roughly about a third smaller than our neighbours.
This does not include coastal and maritime areas nor short term flooding.
From looking at the map in this feature and others I’ve noticed recently Scotland appears to be shrinking at a rate of 15% a week since around November last.
Am I imagining this strange phenomenon?
We’ll soon be too wee to even see.
For anyone who hasn’t already seen it the Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre did a piece on the BBC weather map, which is not quite as bad as this one! Nevertheless a most amusing take on BBC maps…
We have got to get over to the people that the UK is bankrupt. There is no way it can pay off its debts, even MP’s who were asked by Channel Four news a few years ago didn’t know the difference between the deficit and debt.
The UK debt is increasing by about 120 thousand million pounds per year. The official UK debt is over 1.254 Trillion pounds excluding the bank bailouts, the PPI debts and Public sector pension provisions. (Other countries count these in there debt calculations.)
The debt interest each household in the UK is paying for the headline figure of 1.254 Trillion is nearly £2000 per annum. If they cant get the annual deficit down despite the so called austerity (we aint seen nothing yet) there is no way they can start paying back the capital and even it they do Labour said it would take over 400 years to do so. (Probably paid off due to inflation rather than growth!!!)
Now in an independent Scotland, even if we took on all our population share of the UK debt it could be paid off in as little as ten years. Many respected financial exports forecast that the IMF would be running the UK by now, they have managed to stave that off by conning people to buy into the housing market again. Another bubble is expanding, its going to blow and this time the UK wont be able to borrow the money to bail out the banks.
I Remember what it was like in the seventies before Scotland’s oil bailed out the UK? Interest rates of over 14%,The IMF, Dead going unburied. there having to move the goalposts to stop the interest rates going up above .5% as they know the UK is a zombie economy and if interest rates rise by even .5% then the whole stack of dominoes is going to fall.
See article in Spectator magazine regarding property bubble.
link to archive.is
We gotta get out of this place….
Fab, thanks for confirming my sanity and brightening up my day X_sticks ;-D
LOL the Falsettos
Is the UK flag on the graph a foretaste of post 2014?
As other have commented, Scotland seems to have shrunk in the wash. However also interesting is the red cross on a white background that appears as the flag of the UK. I’ll be gutted if I’ve overslept and missed the referendum. Though I’m so pleased Yes won without my vote 🙂
I personally hate the idea of running a deficit. I don’t do it with my household and would hope my country had no need to do so.
I would like to see Scotland break away from fiat currency and introduce is own crypto currency akin to bitcoin, no control for bankers and no central bank to run the economy through the likes of quantitative easing. Just a thought 🙂
I’m sure if challenged BBC London will defend their map. What with the curvature of the Earth and from BBC London’s viewpoint, Scotland is bound to look smaller. No, a satellite photo wouldn’t suit their purpose. Its just a bit of routine UK goading.
Labour spokesdrone just on state broadcaster saying Labour will match the Tories spending cuts, and day to day spending, but mibbe a wee bit more tax for the rich, like those red and blue tory frontbenchers I guess. Looks better every day for Scotland should we vote NO
link to washingtonpost.com
“The re-Balkanization of Europe should give many pause. In a fragile, unstable world where problems and solutions are going global, going local would benefit no one. Separatism offers little by way of comfort to worried populations. It promises more strife and dissension.
Scotland’s nationalists gained control in the country’s devolved Parliament two years ago. Now they like to say that everything will change but also stay the same. This is not convincing. Secession is secession; a separate state is just that.”
O/T Nice to be right sometimes –
This has been my split / breakdown of personnal polling for ages (roughly 30yes /30No /30 Not sure ; but def want more powers)
link to newsnetscotland.com
I noticed the same tactic by the no campaign and its eager allies, the press, were trumpeting on about the alleged £4 billion black hole in Scottish pensions IF the price of oil dropped to $90 PB.
What they didn’t say was that the UK had a several hundred billion black hole in their public and private pensions now and that fact that we have to pay for that with having to work 1, 2 or 3 years extra is proof they have lost the plot when it comes to their feeble accusation.
This needs to be told to as many people as possible.
O/T. I see the daily mail is reporting Osbourne as saying that we will get £25 billion of cuts after the next GE. So this means Scotland can expect it pro rata share.
Another story to tell the public here.
link to dailymail.co.uk
NNS is running with the latest howler from the no camp on its Yougov commissioned poll.
29% want the status quo, 30% want Independence and 32% want more powers.
No doubt our friendly press will spin that around to 30% for Independence and 70% against.
Its also front page healines in the Scottish Sun.
link to dailymail.co.uk
But if Lard Robertson “pig in a poke” opinion of Scotland becoming Independent is bad, his host’s is no better:
link to washingtonpost.com
By Editorial Board, Published: October 30, 2012
DOES IT make sense for Scotland to become an independent nation, ending 300 years of union with England and Wales? And would it make any difference to Americans?
The answer to the second question is an unfortunate yes: An independent Scotland would significantly weaken the foremost military and diplomatic ally of the United States, while creating another European mini-state unable to contribute meaningfully to global security.
Scottish leader Alex Salmond, who on Oct. 15 sealed an agreement with British Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on Scottish independence by the end of 2014, says his would-be country would withdraw from NATO, expel British nuclear submarines from its waters and keep an army of 8,000-10,000 soldiers.
Though the population of Scotland, at 5.2 million, is less than 10 percent of that of the United Kingdom, some speculate that what remained of Britain could lose its seat on the U.N. Security Council.
@Vincent McDee (Have many US connections)
Typical ill informed political blurb, (info probably vetted by UK govt or London press) the ordinary man in the street in US is not dead against Scottish Indpendence, more like “we did it and look at us – go for it” Their press is very like Scottish media – very opinionated and party line structured.
It’s one of the more prevalent scare stories which is used frequently. Pretty much all countries run deficits (whether they should or not is an entirely different question, I’d be saying they shouldn’t, at least over the long run) but it’s a difficult one to counteract because you have to have a bit of understanding about what public spending deficits are actually measuring, as well as how debt is used by governments. People see “spending more than you’re bringing in” and think that is a disaster, even though the UK has not only been running a deficit, it’s been running a massive deficit and it has been doing it almost non stop for decades.
There’s nothing theoretically wrong with deficit spending in the short term depending on where about in the economic cycle you are. You spend to improve infrastructure and the ability of a country to make money during times of recession, but you pay that off during better economic times was always the Keynesian consensus about it. That economic consensus changed under Reagan & Thatcher to the current neo-liberal model which has been responsible for where we are now which is continual deficits which have no way of ever being paid off and which feeds the capitalist system. There’s one of those which seems sensible, the other not so much.
The main problem with continual deficit spending imo is that government is entirely beholden to money markets which have no interest or concern about social good or what’s right for a country. That’s the reason why governments bend over backwards to accomodate them at the expense of good policy.
@vincent mcdee
well said Vincent, they need us to get a seat at the big table, o and a couple of kid on tridents.
don’t forget we punch above our weight. Or some other shit.
@Vince: “Scottish leader Alex Salmond, who on Oct. 15 sealed an agreement with British Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on Scottish independence by the end of 2014, says his would-be country would withdraw from NATO…”
The WaPo article really said that? Wow, that is spectacularly uninformed, even by their standards.
Vellofello – Angus MacNeill – SNP MP challenged the BBC lopsided map when it first appeared – don’t know what progress he made but as you say – he was fobbed off with some hocus-pocus gobbledygook. They really just can’t help themselves and if they were intent on keeping us sweet and in their Union – they were sure going the wrong way about it. Bampots!
Who comes up with the smoke and mirrors patter? Deficit, national debt etc?
You ask anyone in the street “You understand calls for cuts to reduce the deficit”.
Most would agree and then their mouth would drop when you tell them “The Deficit is actually the annual rate at which the government is increasing its debts..NOT the actual National debt itself”.
So all the while, Tories cheer that the flames are maybe not getting that much bigger but the house is still burning down around us!
Scotland currently raises £60Billion in revenues – Spends £64Billion (including the £4Billion debt repayment for monies it didn’t borrow or spend – illegal under Law) = £60Billion. The Scottish budget is manipulated by the UK Treasury, The Barnett Formula – illegal – it keeps Scotland poorer than the rest of the UK. An illegal UK Treasury economic policy to allow tax aversion through the City of London (illegal) UK Treasury keeps £4Billion of Scottish funds (illegal). Scotland pays £27Billion Pension+ Benefits. Scotland gets £29Billion back. Westminster makes Scotland pay £1.5 for Trident (illegal). Scotland does not have full fiscal autonomy (illegal under Scottish/UK/EU/International Law.
The Scottish Oil sector is taxed at 60-80%, while (foreign) Multinationals tax avade through the City of London. HMRC is not fit for purpose and is not regulated properly. (illegal and unfair for British business – under laws of equal completion -UK/EU/International and UN.
The UK gov raises £600Billion in tax revenues and spends £700Billion. – £100Billion (pro rata £10Billion) in the rest of the UK, while Scotland has to make debt repayments for monies not borrowed or spent. (illegal and and unfair (under Scottish/UK/EU and International Laws of equal rights equality of all citizens. This has been happening since 1928 and has made Scotland poorer, by comparison (illegally).Giving citizens in the rest of the a higher disposable income. (illegal and unfair).
Fuel/energy markets are unfair (illegal) Scotland in surplus, has to pay more because it is colder, and pay for transmission costs to the South.
Scotland has been balancing it’s budget and in surplus for years.
Just had a read of the links you put in for Mr Stheeman, the article stated that he raised 228bn in 2009, according to Uk Govt figures the deficit for 2009/2010 was 171bn, therefore 47bn extra was raised, am I correct in thinking that this additional borrowing would have been needed to service the off book debts such as the Banking Bailouts, PPI etc?
Perhaps some of you financial experts could look into this, this is the first time that I have seen these figures. Or is there an other explanation on why the Govt raised 47bn more than it needed. Did they pay off any capital with the additional funds, maybe it was needed to service some expiring bonds before the quantative easing printing presses roared into action. Whatever it would be worth investigating as we might actually get to the bottom of the UK’s real fiscal position.
Love the sock puppet skit, X_sticks! I stopped watching the BBC weather when the new map was introduced (STV’s ‘flyover’ map is also extremely irritating). I remember the complaints at the time and believe it or not, the BBC’s map used to be even worse.
PS although the map in the linked article is incredibly distorted, notice how the debt sits entirely on England 🙂
Correction to last post, that was an additional 57billion of borrowing not 47bn as stated, could not correct as new post came in
Dave mc Ewan Hill
Hence the pound (sterling) needs Scotland in the sterling area or London is in the shit. We might want to use sterling for continuity and convenience. England really is creating big problems for itself if it were to loose Scotland from the sterling zone. AND THEY KNOW IT, HENCE NO DEFINITE STATEMENT THAT WE WOULD BE PUT OUT, THAT WOULD SCARE THE HORSES.
I wonder if Mr STheeman would like to take a long walking holiday, in Scotland, that man would be a minefield of information, ( post independence negotiation,s. Again the problem , getting this information into the hands of the Scottish Public. We need to be looking more far reaching, Citizen,s Tv / our own News Paper, C Mon people we have the talent, & the knowhow. Street by Street , Town by Town.
Cameron’s refusal to debate these issues with Salmond is a very serious issue and a dereliction of his duty as the PM of this ‘virtually bankrupt’ UK. Do you seriously think Alex Salmond would not bring up the extent of UK debt which will go on to totally cripple Scotland and its people?
The FM is outside the UK tent and will happily piss into it, just as he should do to protect this country and its people from further fiscal abuse from Westminster. Cameron ain’t stupid he knows the game’s up – he just cannot get his way out of it – the UK is in terminal freefall decline and cannot recover.
Can anyone; Bill Jamieson, Alf Young, John McLaren, Brian Ashcroft, Joe Stiglitz, Alex Salmond, my old granny, suggest a positive way ahead for the rUK and Cameron? Nope, didn’t think so. Time to get out of this place!
Nothing has been paid off the deficit. It was intended to pay £10Billion off the deficit. The fiscal mismanagement of the UK by the UK Treasury makes that unlikely and the deficit will rise. The £30Billion (with £10 liabilities) Royal Mail + Pension fund seems to have disappeared) off the balance sheet, including Scotland’s share. (illegal)
Westminster economic policies are a complete failure.
The only thing in which the UK Treasury excels is manipulating the figures to hide it’s failure and the tax evasion (illegal).
Ken500
The deficit isnt the debt…its a rate of increase in respect to the debt.
So while Tories and Lib Dems shout about a deficit reduction, its basically just a cry of “Look at how the debts gone up a wee bit less than its been going up!”
The illegal war etc = UK gov £1.2trn debt.
US – illegal wars €6trn. US debt €18trn increased from €16trn.
If you haven’t seen it already might find this useful.
All the numbers on the UK and Scotland’s deficit are covered in here.
The BBC report is UK gov controlled prapaganda to try and convince the public everything is ‘normal’ – ‘there is nothing to worry about’ (illegal) to hide the UK Exchequers dismal failure. (illegal)
Osbourne/Alexander have cut spending (by too much) and cut taxation (too much) The race is to the bottom, there is no growth. Only growth or less spending cuts and higher tax revenues will produce monies to repay any of the deficit. The wealthy (them) have benefitted and the poorer have paid the price. That was the intention.
Total propaganda (illegal)
The £4Billion (illegal) debt repayment (disproportionate) from Scotland, has just disappeared into the UK Exchequer. There has been no deficit pay off.
If the US does not get it’s debt under control, and start to cut the debt, the whole world economy will collapse.
bertie k
x sticks
bloody hell scotlands wee
if you look quick enough you can see the last person on ireland getting ready to swim for it
stu
can you tell me if the site has any difficulties i put a post up at 1:26pm
and now everything has gone haywire keep being told site is down dont even know how i got back
tried rebooting logging of and on and still the site is down
help anybody
The UK is not bankrupt, at least not financially. Governments of countries which have their own currencies are not like households; if you are the source of the currency you use you can never lose access to it. Its value in international transactions can vary, you might create too much or too little, but you can never go bankrupt except through choice.
Private sector, and especially household, debt in the UK is another matter, as the recent boost in GDP is being partly driven – again; it seems the UK government and households have learned little from 2008 – by a reduction in household saving.
The current arrangements by which banks create credit, and by which they and others receive guaranteed income via interest on government ‘borrowing’ is yet another matter. But the problem is the power ceded to the banks, not government solvency. It is literal nonsense to claim that governments need to borrow something which only they can create.
We have powerful and corrupt bankers and ideologically motivated economists, and the financial system needs to be changed radically – and not just in the UK and/or an independent Scotland. That change has to be based on an understanding of how money, currencies, and economies actually function. Countries with their own floating currency, and with governments which issue any debt in that currency, cannot be forced into bankruptcy or default.
Oh, and this is the first post from a lurker; an Englishman hoping for a Yes vote and a chance to move, and contribute, to a nation of people trying to build something better. Better together you could say. Fingers crossed for the formatting; it’s bad enough I’m English, but if I get my paragraphs wrong…
You lot seem to have this issue comprehensively covered but I couldn’t resist adding:
Links:
link to t.co
link to pro.moneyweek.com
@bald eagle
I had the same problems for a couple of hours this afternoon too – fortunately looks like everything is back and working properly again now!
pickledonionsupper
no bloody change this side this keeps up i will have to take face ache out
been on other threads and cant move up down or anything and when i post everything bloody freezes
It may be an ‘age’ thing but I’m sure i commented on the deficit this morning and it has subsequently disappeared – any reason for that to happen?
“It may be an ‘age’ thing but I’m sure i commented on the deficit this morning and it has subsequently disappeared – any reason for that to happen?”
Yes, it’d have vanished if it didn’t have paragraph breaks or if it triggered CITE tags. See posting rules here:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
and here:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
That’s a really good presentation Ivan, upping the standard of the debate.
@ FlimFlamMan – welcome aboard and stick your oar in whenever you can.
So what does the recovery position from being £13,000 billion in debt mean if you can’t service it? Give me another word that covers ‘state bankruptcy’ as we watch the chancellor high-tailing it to the IMF to get bailed out, adding yet another surge of repayments on top of what we already are up against.
Is the manifestation of state bankruptcy the loss of worse than triple A and lots worse for the UK population as we go into some future meltdown with no social and welfare services and pushing barrows full of tenners to buy a loaf?
When is somebody going to call it for what it is ?
Ivan
What KraftyKris said
Also interesting the Q&A session where the speaker asked for a show of hands with a large section opting for Yes.
Amazing how the numbers are so high.
Tell me, do you do head counts at your meetings? This could be used in BfS surveys/polls and maybe give a truer picture of what people are thinking.
@Barontorc
Thanks for the welcome. I think I’ll reserve my oar for economic subjects; I probably ought to actually move north before applying it generally.
The UK government has no problem servicing its debt, other than its own incompetence. All but a minuscule amount of UK gov debt is denominated in sterling. Sterling – the actual currency, not debt denominated in that currency – is created by the UK government: HM Treasury and the Bank of England.
When the gov ‘borrows’, private parties purchase government bonds, either with cash – produced by the government – or via various bank cheques/transfers, which are ultimately settled by the extinguishing of reserves – created by the government.
So the government is ‘borrowing’ something which it created; which only it can create.
It’s all smoke and mirrors; either an unnecessary and incompetence driven hang-over from the days of the gold standard – when borrowing was real and necessary – or deliberate obfuscation driven by the wealthy and powerful in defence of their wealth and power – we’ve run out of money, There Is No Alternative.
Ahh, yes, AAA and the rating agencies.
Japan ‘suffered’ several downgrades starting in the ’90s, down to just above junk status; it made not a blind bit of difference. Yields on their debt remained low, because the bond traders knew that Japan, with its own currency, faced zero default risk.
If the bond traders had not understood that reality the Japanese government, as a currency issuer, had the capacity to set yields wherever it wanted, via its central bank. Or indeed the capacity to stop issuing bonds at all; they’re just welfare for bankers.
Greece, Spain, et al have recently seen huge increases in their bond yields, despite far lower debt than Japan and less severe downgrades. The difference is they gave up their currencies and joined the euro, and therefore faced genuine default risk. They became mere currency users, not issuers, and the bond traders saw that weakness.
Those spiked bond yields only fell when the European Central Bank stepped in; the ECB is the currency issuer for the euro. It’s all about the currency.
Of course, they only stepped in enough to defend the banks and the issuance of government bonds, not enough to defend and support the people of Greece etc. That’s neoliberal politics for you though.
Governments face zero default risk if they follow these rules:
1) Issue their own currency
2) Let that currency float
3) Issue debt, if any, in that currency
If our social welfare is gutted it is because the UK government chose to gut it, not because of the economics. As a currency issuing nation, or union of nations, we can afford whatever combination of activities we have the physical capacity to achieve.
An independent Scotland with its own currency would have that same capacity and, I think and hope, by divorcing itself from Westminster and The City it would also have the political and social will to use that capacity for the benefit of all its people, not just those with wealth and power.
@FlimFlamMan – So the illusion is, if others are willing to buy your bonds at the rate you set, with your own currency, as happened in Japan, you can print money till the cows come home?
So, there is a GDP / debt servicing problem, international ‘confidence’ goes out the window as pariah status takes over. Is it virtually bankrupt when it pays more to operate than it takes in? When does a country become unstable? When do investors start to baulk? Is it when the deal is no longer sweet enough?
@Barontorc
“So the illusion is, if others are willing to buy your bonds at the rate you set…”
There are several illusions. The greatest is that countries that have their own currency need to issue bonds at all.
Slightly smaller illusions include the ideas that countries that have their own currency but issue bonds anyway – in that currency – face a default risk, and that yields on those bonds are set by the markets.
Bond traders, the so called bond vigilantes, are typically smart enough not to fall for the illusions, so they left Japan well alone but targeted Greece, Ireland, Spain and so on.
“…you can print money till the cows come home?”
We need to get away from the idea that ‘printing money’ – largely electronic creation these days, numbers in spreadsheets – is a bad thing. Money doesn’t grow on trees; if we didn’t ‘print’ it we wouldn’t have any.
The question is how much can we create without causing problems, and the limit is in the amount of goods and services available for purchase in that currency. If we try to spend beyond the capacity of the economy to respond then that spending will compete for scarce goods and services, driving up prices. Inflation.
If we don’t spend enough then output goes unsold, production is cut back and hiring slows and/or layoffs rise. Unemployment.
There are officially over 2 million people in the UK – and rather more using better measures – who want to work but can’t because there are not enough jobs. These people are offering their services for purchase, in sterling, but nobody is taking up their offer.
We are not spending enough.
The private sector is financially constrained; it is a currency user. As things stand households can only increase spending by reducing saving, and unfortunately that is what is happening.
The UK government, in following the three rules I mentioned, is not financially constrained. It is a currency issuer. Its constraints are real; the amount of goods and services available for purchase.
So, those services are available and the government has the capacity to purchase them, but it is not doing so. It is choosing unemployment.
It is often argued that there is nothing useful for people to do if the government hired them, but that’s nonsense.
Right now some spending and employment on better flood defences looks useful. Employing people to put power lines underground so they don’t get blown down with every storm that comes through looks useful. Big projects requiring a lot of people and a variety of skills.
“So, there is a GDP / debt servicing problem…”
No, there is a currency / debt servicing problem.
“…international ‘confidence’ goes out the window as pariah status takes over.”
Under specific conditions. See below.
“Is it virtually bankrupt when it pays more to operate than it takes in?”
No, most governments pay out more than they take in; the currency situation is vital.
“When does a country become unstable?”
In terms of government deficits and debt? When it runs a persistent current account deficit with either:
1) Direct use of a foreign currency – see the euro zone over the last few years.
2) A local currency pegged to a foreign currency – see Argentina 2001.
3) A local floating currency but debt denominated in foreign currency – see Russia after the collapse of USSR, although that situation was complicated.
“When do investors start to baulk?”
I wouldn’t use the word investor, since these bond purchases aren’t about increasing productive capacity. But when do they baulk? Who knows? As Keynes said: markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
The point is that what investors/speculators/parasites do is irrelevant when a country has its own floating currency and issues debt in that currency. Better still is to not issue the debt; it’s unnecessary.
“Is it when the deal is no longer sweet enough?”
Sure, where there is a genuine default risk. Most bond traders know that sovereign nations that follow the three rules face no such risk, which, again, is why they targeted the deficit running euro zone countries, driving yields way up, but left Japan – and the US, and the UK – alone.
If you have your own currency you have control; if you don’t then you hand that control over to the speculators and parasites in the financial sector.