R.Wives can be worse for Rashil Reeves, but not much. The economy is stagnant. Donald Trump decided that the United Kingdom would not be Exempt On steel and aluminum exports to the United States. The stock markets have taken fear and stock prices.
Five years after the start of the Covid-19 insurance, the epidemic scars proved to be deep and long. Spring statement on the economy that Reeves will offer later this month will be announced Luxury discounts In order to prevent the government from breaking its borrowing rules.
Echoes in the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century everywhere. The return of protectionism is only one of the ways in which the years between the first and second global wars are re -representing. Just as I watched the twentieth century failed attempts to return the watch to the global economy supervised by the golden standard, therefore for more than a decade and a half of central banks and financial ministries seeking to return to rapid growth in the 1990s and early 2000s.
As in the same years, the multilateral system is weakened by the United States isolation. Medium European powers such as Britain and France are required to bear the burden of mass security. As there is a feeling of liberal values that are threatened. Ukraine is the New Czechoslovakia and see Vladimir Putin is the new Hitler – who will be used at the danger of Europe. The distribution of peace profits – higher social spending by spending a smaller share of national income on tanks, planes and ships – is a thing of the past.
There was no repetition of great depression in the thirties of the twentieth century-at least not yet-but there is no real sign that a long period of interest rates is very low that led to stronger economic growth. But last month, a new narration developed. Countries like Britain, as a result of Trump’s connection to the deployment of the United States to defend Europe, will increase military spending. the Enhance the defense budget The government growth agenda will help because the additional funds will provide an incentive. After all, did the khaki Kenzi eventually cause full job opportunities and the end of depression?
If all this seems to be a very explanation, then this is because of it. Given that nothing else has succeeded, it was imperative that politics makers ultimately or ultimately suffer from arms spending as a remedy, but the idea that there could be a return to the war economy 1939-1945 is imagination.
For one reason, evidence of the late thirties of the twentieth century and the early 1940s indicates that the current government’s plans are not sufficient either to significantly increase growth or the United Kingdom’s preparation for a major continental war. Defense spending increased From 2.2 % of GDP in 1933, the year reached power, to 6.9 % in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement.
At its peak in 1944, defensive spending formed half of the UK national production. Keir Starmer raided the aid budget to pay the defense spending costs to raise it from 2.3 % to 2.5 % of GDP and has an ambition to increase to 3 % of GDP, but these are modest increases.
Then there is a question about how to finance additional defensive spending. During World War II, this was done through a mixture of borrowing, taxes and legalization. The national debt has risen to 250 % of GDP, while the need to convert resources into sequences means that there must be pressure on consumer spending. Without the height of taxes and legalization, the indispensable economy had suffered a fugitive hypertrophy.
The position adopted by a different Reeves. The chancellor is not ready to break its financial rules to pay the costs of high defense spending, so the additional borrowing is not an option. This leaves it with an option either an increase in taxes or discounts in spending. Not only that there is no longer peace profits; Instead, peace dividends will go back, with discounts in a ladder time economy that pays for additional military spending.
Germany plans to relieve borrowing rules, which means that re -delivery will have an impact on growth, but Britain is not. There will be no change in the size of the British economy or its growth rate, and the government’s attempt to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
However, the debate about the Kinzi military issues because it proves that the resources can always be found if the need is considered great enough. When you face a crisis, governments can always get money. There were three consultants from the treasury between 1939 and 1945, and all peripheral figures, because, first, the national survival and then the pursuit of victory means getting rid of the financial rules and shrinking the effect of the treasury.
While Starmer returns to this era with his talk about the economic benefits of high defensive spending, it truly provides the military Kinzian. Moreover, the climate crisis pose a greater existential threat than this country more than Putin-or ever, so if the money can be found for the army, there is no reason for not finding the motivation to accelerate the self-sufficiency in clean energy. It may do this for national security.