Philippe Legrain

Greenspan: Blame everyone but me for the crisis

Money quote: “To this day it is hard to find fault with the conceptual framework of our [financial risk management] models as far as they go.”

Of course not.  

Kaletsky endorses directing Northern Rock to lend

Britain's banks aren't lending, which is strangling the economy. The package of measures to support lending to smaller businesses which the government announced yesterday will do some good. But it is not enough.

As I have argued previously, the government should direct nationalised Northern Rock to step into the breach. Anatole Kaletsky endorses this position in today's Times:

the quickest and least costly emergency response would be to reverse the policy of running down Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. Both these banks are now fully owned by the Government and could be turned into rapidly growing state-guaranteed lenders.

The plans to run down their lending were right in the circumstances in which they were nationalised last year, when other private banks were functioning more or less normally. But things have completely changed and it now makes sense to reverse their policy of credit contraction. Northern Rock is ideally positioned to re-expand the supply of mortgages to first-time buyers, while Bradford & Bingley could revive the flow of finance to commercial and social housing. The Government could also be much less shy about exerting its majority control over the Royal Bank of Scotland and its 40 per cent stake in Lloyds-HBOS, by far the biggest commercial and mortgage lender in the country.

Are you listening, Peter Mandelson?

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Krugman: big fiscal stimulus that boosts government spending needed

Now, the United States tried a fiscal stimulus in early 2008; both the Bush administration and congressional Democrats touted it as a plan to "jump-start" the economy. The actual results were, however, disappointing, for two reasons. First, the stimulus was too small, accounting for only about 1 percent of GDP. The next one should be much bigger, say, as much as 4 percent of GDP. Second, most of the money in the first package took the form of tax rebates, many of which were saved rather than spent. The next plan should focus on sustaining and expanding government spending—sustaining it by providing aid to state and local governments, expanding it with spending on roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure.

The usual objection to public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going—that by the time the boost to demand arrives, the slump is over. That doesn't seem to be a major worry now, however: it's very hard to see any quick economic recovery, unless some unexpected new bubble arises to replace the housing bubble. (A headline in the satirical newspaper The Onion captured the problem perfectly: "Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble to Invest In.") As long as public spending is pushed along with reasonable speed, it should arrive in plenty of time to help—and it has two great advantages over tax breaks. On one side, the money would actually be spent; on the other, something of value (e.g., bridges that don't fall down) would be created.

In short, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says a fiscal stimulus needs to:
1. be big (unlike in the UK, where it amounts to only 1% of GDP)
2. prioritise government spending rather than tax breaks (unlike in the UK, where it consists mainly of a temporary VAT cut).

Darling concedes fiscal stimulus wasn't big enough

The Chancellor told the Observer that:

You'd be very foolish indeed to say, "Well, that's the job done". You know this is something that needs constant attention. We've got the Budget next year, we've got the pre-Budget report in 12 months' time, the Budget after that. I put more money into the reserve on Monday precisely because I know we're almost certainly going to be doing additional things. The people expect you to do that.

If he expects to have to deliver a further stimulus next March, he should have done it now.

If UK banks won't lend, Northern Rock should

The reason why the government had to rescue Britain’s banks is not that their shareholders and executives deserve special favours, but because businesses and jobs depend on the availability of credit. There is no public interest in propping up banks that won’t lend.

For sure, banks should not be lending with reckless abandon as they did in the go-go years, but nor should they be slashing the overdrafts of solvent small businesses and jacking up the interest rates on them. If the banks refuse to lend, the government must step in. It is considering all sorts of interventions, but seems to be ignoring an obvious solution.

Political pressure on the banks has been largely ineffective so far. While Peter Mandelson, the business secretary, has said that “It’s completely unacceptable to the government and to business in this country for banks indefinitely to stop functioning as banks. We are in very intensive discussions with the banks, believe me”, jawboning alone is unlikely to succeed when banks’ priority is hoarding cash and reducing risk.

Alasdair Darling is also drafting a raft of measures to support business lending. These could include new requirements for banks to give businesses greater notice of changes in the terms and availability of credit. More ambitiously, the Chancellor is looking at ways to extend government guarantees to support new business lending.

But such is banks’ aversion to lend that the government also needs to consider bolder moves. It could insure all loans to businesses. It could lend directly to companies. And it could nationalise the banks altogether.

There is also another option that the government does not appear to be considering. It already owns a fully fledged bank: Northern Rock. Perversely, while it is urging the soon-to-be part-nationalised banks to lend more, it is busy shrinking the balance sheet of the only fully nationalised one.

That made some sense when the rest of the banking sector was private: the government did not wish a state-owned bank to undermine the private banks by competing unfairly them. But now that the whole banking sector enjoys an implicit government guarantee and the overriding priority is supporting lending to avert a depression, that objection no longer holds.

So if other banks will not lend, the government should inject a dollop of new capital into Northern Rock and direct it to make it more credit available on reasonable commercial terms. If other banks do not follow suit, Northern Rock may grow to become one of the biggest banks in Britain. But so what? It can be privatised again, no doubt at a hefty profit for taxpayers, when the crisis is over and the economy is growing again.

Addendum: Northern Rock is raising its mortgage rates today. Unbelievable.

Why we need a fiscal stimulus

Willem Buiter sums it up perfectly:

The private financial sector has to deleverage massively, but would (with credit markets and wholesale financial markets closed for business) do so in an unnecessarily destructive way if left to its own devices. The household sectors in the US, the UK and a number of other European countries have to deleverage (start saving seriously) on a significant scale. Left to its own devices, the short-run Keynesian aggregate demand fall-out from a necessary reconstruction of household financial wealth could be disastrous. So the public sector has to leverage up (borrow) at the same time the household sector is forced to deleverage.

Call this a cure?

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Alistair Darling's statement was a pre-budget report only in name; in reality, it was an emergency budget crafted by Gordon Brown. It was big and bold, but it should have been bigger and bolder. Worse, the main plank of the government's plan to support the economy – a cut in VAT to stimulate consumption – is misplaced.

On the big picture, Gordon Brown is right and David Cameron is wrong: a fiscal stimulus is urgently needed to prop up the economy as demand slumps. Faced with the sharpest downturn since the 1930s, interest-rate cuts are not enough. While a further increase in government borrowing is risky, doing nothing – and risking an even longer and deeper recession – would be reckless.

The forecasts for government borrowing are huge – £78bn in this tax year, £118bn in the next – but national debt will still peak at only 57% of GDP, comfortably below the level deemed prudent by EU rules. It is not a tragedy if public debt rises even higher in the short term. So the Conservatives' critique is wide of the mark. The real problem with the government's stimulus package is that it is too small and poorly targeted.

A stimulus of £20bn between now and April 2010 is not trifling, but it amounts to only 1% of GDP. It will do little to fill the gap left by the collapse in private consumption and investment, not least since some of the stimulus will be saved. In comparison, president-elect Obama's team are considering a fiscal boost of $500bn, or even $700bn, over two years – which is equivalent to 1.75%-2.5% of GDP in each year. A bigger stimulus would not only provide a bigger boost to the economy directly, it could also help restore confidence, by signalling to consumers and companies that the government is serious about supporting the economy.

The focus of the emergency budget is also misdirected. Encouraging debt-ridden consumers to spend more is wrongheaded. For a start, it may not work: since retailers' hefty discounts are doing little to tempt shoppers to spend, a cut in VAT of 2.5% is unlikely to either. But even if it does work, encouraging consumers to go on yet another spending spree is unwise when they need to start saving more. It would be far better had the government done more to limit job losses, repossessions and bankruptcies and invest in areas, such as infrastructure, that bring long-term benefits to society.

For sure, the measures to help small businesses are welcome. A combination of tax cuts and loan guarantees will help. But a large share of the assistance consists of merely deferring a planned rise in corporation tax. A temporary cut in corporation tax for small businesses would have provided a lifeline for them and their employees.

Likewise, the £1.3bn package to protect jobs is too small. More jobs could be saved if the government introduced a temporary cut in employers' National Insurance contributions. And while the £1.8bn housing package is better than nothing, three months' grace for those struggling with their mortgages will bring little relief. The government should also provide funds for housing associations or local authorities to buy up property that banks wish to repossess, allowing homeowners to remain as tenants if they wish.

Above all, the focus of the stimulus package should have been a big increase in investment in infrastructure and other public works, along the lines proposed by president-elect Obama. Instead, the government merely brought forward £3bn in capital spending, a drop in the ocean. It should be doing much more: bringing forward and increasing spending on social housing, upping and accelerating investment in Britain's crumbling infrastructure, especially transport, and offering bigger subsidies for energy-efficiency measures, such as loft insulation.

Longer term, the government's growth and deficit forecasts look optimistic. It seems unlikely that the economy will start growing again as early as the second half of next year. The recovery is also likely to be slower than the government predicts, since consumers will be struggling with the burden of their excessive debts for many years. So looking forward, the tax rises in the next parliament are likely to be bigger than the 0.5% increase in National Insurance contributions and the introduction of a new 45% tax band on incomes above £150,000 announced.

The measures announced in the pre-budget report are unlikely to be the last word. As the crisis continues to take violent and unpredictable new turns every other week, with the US banking giant Citigroup forced to seek a bail-out over the weekend, further action will no doubt be needed soon. The government may need to inject further capital into Britain's banks – and outright nationalisation may even be necessary. A further fiscal stimulus is also likely to be needed in next year's budget. It's a pity Darling didn't announce it yesterday.

Darling's stimulus should have been bigger and bolder

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Alasdair Darling’s statement was a pre-budget report only in name; in reality, it was an emergency budget crafted by Gordon Brown. It was big and bold, but it should have been bigger and bolder. Worse, the main plank of the government’s plan to support the economy – a cut in VAT to stimulate consumption – is misconceived.

On the big picture, Gordon Brown is right and David Cameron wrong: a fiscal stimulus is urgently needed to prop up the economy as demand slumps. Faced with the sharpest downturn since the 1930s, interest-rate cuts are not enough. While a further increase in government borrowing is risky, doing nothing – and risking an even longer and deeper recession – would be reckless. The forecasts for government borrowing are huge – £78 billion in this tax year, £118 billion in the next – but national debt will still peak at only 57% of GDP, comfortably below the level deemed prudent by EU rules. It is not a tragedy if public debt rises even higher in the short term. So the Conservatives’ critique is wide of the mark. The real problem with the government’s stimulus package is that it is too small and poorly targeted.

A stimulus of £20 billion between now and April 2010 is not trifling, but it amounts to only 1% of GDP. It will do little to fill the gap left by the collapse in private consumption and investment, not least since some of the stimulus will be saved. In comparison, president-elect Obama’s team are considering a fiscal boost of $500 billion, or even $700 billion, over two years – which is equivalent to 1.75%-2.5% of GDP in each year. A bigger stimulus would not only provide a bigger boost to the economy directly, it could also help restore confidence, by signalling to consumers and companies that the government is serious about supporting the economy.

The focus of the emergency budget is also misdirected. Encouraging overindebted consumers to spend more is wrong-headed. For a start it may not work: since retailers’ hefty discounts are doing little to tempt shoppers to spend, a cut in VAT of 2.5% is unlikely to either. But even if it does work, encouraging consumers to go on yet another spending spree is unwise when they need to start saving more. The government should instead have done far more to limit job losses, repossessions and bankruptcies and to invest in areas, such as infrastructure, that bring long-term benefits to society.

For sure, the measures to help small businesses are welcome. A combination of tax cuts and loan guarantees will help. But a large share of the assistance consists of merely deferring a planned rise in corporation tax; a temporary cut would have been much better.

Likewise, the £1.3 billion package to protect jobs is too small. More jobs could be saved if the government introduced a temporary cut in employers’ national insurance contributions. And while the £1.8 billion housing package is better than nothing, three months’ grace for those struggling with their mortgages will bring little relief. The government should also provide funds for housing associations or local authorities to buy up property that banks wish to repossess, allowing homeowners to remain as tenants if they wish.

Above all, the focus of the stimulus package should have been a big increase in investment in infrastructure and other public works, along the lines proposed by president-elect Obama. Instead, the government merely brought forward £3 billion in capital spending, a drop in the ocean. It should be doing much more: bringing forward and increasing spending on social housing, upping and accelerating investment in Britain’s crumbling infrastructure, especially transport, and offering bigger subsidies for energy-efficiency measures, such as loft insulation.

Longer term, the government’s growth and deficit forecasts look optimistic. It seems unlikely that the economy will start growing again as early as the second half of next year. The recovery is also likely to be slower than the government predicts, since consumers will be struggling with the burden of their excessive debts for many years. So looking forward, the taxes are likely to have to rise by more in the next parliament than the 0.5% increase in national-insurance contributions and the introduction of a new 45% tax band on incomes above £150,000 announced now.

The measures announced in the pre-budget report are unlikely to be the last word. As the crisis continues to take violent and unpredictable new turns every other week – witness the rescue of the US banking giant Citigroup over the weekend – further action will no doubt be needed soon. The government may need to inject further capital into Britain’s ailing banks – and more outright nationalisations may even be necessary. A further fiscal stimulus is also likely to be needed in next year’s budget. It’s a pity it wasn’t announced this week.

 

This is not money for nothing

Tony Blair once said that the government was best when it was boldest. Gordon Brown is – finally – heeding that advice. The government's three-pronged plan to shore up Britain's banking system is bold and right. It is our best hope of pacifying the financial panic, getting credit flowing through the economy again and thus avoiding a 1930s-style depression.

The Bank of England's half-point cut in interest rates is also welcome, particularly since it was coordinated with other central banks. It signals that the US and Europe are finally acting together to tackle the global financial crisis. But a larger cut is needed soon: at 4.5%, UK interest rates are still far too high.

The bigger challenge is to get banks lending again – to each other, to companies and to individuals. They need enough cash to conduct their day-to-day operations; secure access to medium-term funding; and extra long-term capital to provide a cushion against bad debts and allow them to lend to creditworthy borrowers.

The government's plan addresses all three of these needs. The Bank of England will supply £200bn in short-term funding; the government will underwrite £250bn of medium-term finance; and it will also inject £25bn in long-term capital initially – and perhaps up to £50bn in total – in the form of preference shares that pay a fixed return and protect taxpayers' investment.

Headline writers may describe the government plan as a £500bn bail-out, but that is completely misleading. The £200bn consists of short-term secured loans; the £250bn is a form of insurance, for which the government will be paid a fee; and the £50bn is an investment that pays a return. This is not money for nothing.

And while it is certainly true that taxpayers' money is at risk, we will also share in the upside when the banks recover – as they are much more likely to do thanks to the government's intervention. Most importantly, the risk of doing nothing – or of continuing to do too little, too late – is far greater. If the banks went under, so would businesses and jobs. By keeping the UK banking system afloat, the government – acting on behalf of all of us – is giving the economy a life raft.

Many of the details of the government's plan are still unclear. Ideally, the preference shares should pay a hefty interest rate to properly compensate taxpayers and give banks an incentive to seek private financing if and when they can. Taxpayers' money should also come with strings attached, such as guarantees that banks will use the extra capital to lend to small businesses and individuals rather than pay extravagant dividends and unjustified bonuses. And, of course, the plan must be implemented speedily and efficiently.

We are by no means out of the woods yet. Global financial markets are in turmoil; other governments need to follow Britain's bold lead soon. The UK economy has many other weaknesses: consumers are overladen with debt, often secured against housing that remains overpriced; unemployment is rising; food and energy prices remain painfully high; and the global gloom is hardly auspicious for exporters, despite the fillip of a weaker currency. What's more, the banking rescue package will swell the government's already-large deficit – although borrowing to invest in banks need not increase the national debt in the long term. But while 2009 will no doubt be unpleasant, the government's actions should stave off economic collapse. Amid all the gloom, that is certainly good news.

Taking stock

The time for half-measures is over. Britain is no longer in the grips of a credit crunch or even a financial crisis; it is suffering a full-on financial heart attack. Markets have seized up. Banks will no longer lend to each other. Credit to companies and individuals is drying up. Unless credit starts flowing again soon, a nasty recession – conceivably even a depression – looms and with it, massive job losses, bankruptcies, repossessions and a sharp fall in living standards. The government needs to act – now.

But what to do? Ken Livingstone, Seumas Milne and others argue that the government should turn its back on market economics. Since capitalism seems to be collapsing under the weight of its internal contradictions, the government should finish it off. More measured voices such as the TUC's Brendan Barbour favour a ragbag of measures, such as a new industrial policy. But all of them are missing the point. Righting the huge problems in financial markets certainly requires decisive government intervention, but lashing out at generally well-functioning product and labour markets is perilously misplaced. The last thing a heart-attack victim needs is to have a healthy leg amputated. The priority now is tackling the financial crisis; everything else is a dangerous diversion.

But while the government should not try to turn the clock back to the 1970s, it does need to change course. Its ad hoc approach will no longer do. The nationalisations of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, and the government-orchestrated rescue of HBOS, were justified at the time. But damage limitation is no longer enough – not least since Lloyds' rescue of HBOS seems to be dragging it down, too. Now Royal Bank of Scotland seems under threat; Barclays may be next in line. Waiting for the next bank to collapse and then picking up the pieces will not restore confidence or get credit flowing around the economy again.

Across Europe, governments are rushing to following Ireland's lead and guarantee (nearly) all deposits in the banking system. Here, the Treasury has just raised the guarantee on savers' deposits to £50,000. But while it may soon be forced to extend a broader guarantee, this will not tackle the root causes of the crisis: a lack of capital in the financial system and sheer panic.

A cut in interest rates would do some good. Although inflation is well above the target rate of 2%, the Bank of England should slash rates when it meets on Thursday. As the global economy tanks, oil prices are sinking, so inflation is set to fall. Collapsing demand means that the real threat now is deflation, not inflation. But a big cut in interest rates will not be enough. If banks are unwilling to lend, monetary policy alone is virtually useless – in Keynes' words, it is like "pushing on a string". Bolder measures are needed.

The US has opted for a $700bn bailout. In theory, taking bad debts off banks' books should reassure markets that that they are not about to go bust. Banks may be willing to lend to each other again, their share prices may recover somewhat, and investors – not least Asian governments and those of oil-rich states – may be willing to pump some of their huge cash reserves into them. But the bailout route is deeply flawed. It provides the most help to the banks that made the biggest mistakes. It exposes taxpayers to huge potential losses. And it does little to recapitalise the banking sector and thus encourage it to start lending again.

There is a better way. As now seems likely to happen in some form, with the chancellor's statement on Wednesday morning, the government should buy stakes in – and in some cases, take over – stricken banks, an approach that worked well in Sweden in the early 1990s. With the government standing behind banks, the fear that they are about to go bust would vanish. An injection of taxpayers' money would strengthen banks' balance sheets, allowing them to start lending again. But it would not be money for nothing: the government could acquire preference shares, which pay a hefty interest rate and put taxpayers first in line to be repaid if a bank fails. These could be combined with warrants (basically, options to buy shares at a future date at a specified price), so as to give us all a share in the profits when banks – and the economy – recover.

John Hussman, a US analyst and investor, has suggested a novel variant of this idea. He proposes that the government provide capital in the form of a "super-bond". This would be subordinate to deposits, and so could be counted as capital. But if a bank went bust, taxpayers would be repaid before shareholders and senior bondholders, thus protecting the financial system, customers and taxpayers. The super-bond could pay a relatively high interest rate to give banks an incentive to shift to private financing when conditions improve, but interest payments could be deferred until banks were profitable so as not to drain their cash reserves now.

A government recapitalisation of the banking sector – combined with much tougher financial regulation to limit future excesses – would be good politics, as well as sound economics. With Labour so far behind in the polls, its only chance of recovery depends on rescuing the economy from the worst crisis since the 1930s. Decisive action would marginalise the Conservatives, who are unconvincing advocates for state intervention in the financial system and are, in any case, powerless to act. And since even David Cameron has been forced to concede that government injections of capital may be needed, the government has political cover to act.

Gordon Brown has shown that he can be bold when circumstances demand it. Now is such a time.

       

Britain's bold bank rescue plan

Tony Blair once said that the government was best when it was boldest. Gordon Brown is – finally – heeding that advice. The government’s three-pronged plan to shore up Britain’s banking system is bold and right. It is our best hope of pacifying the financial panic, getting credit flowing through the economy again and thus avoiding a 1930s-style depression.

The Bank of England’s half-point cut in interest rates is also welcome, particularly since it was co-ordinated with other central banks. It signals that the US and Europe are finally acting together to tackle the global financial crisis. But a larger cut is needed soon: at 4.5%, UK interest rates are still far too high.

The bigger challenge is to get banks lending again – to each other, to companies and to individuals. They need enough cash to conduct their day-to-day operations; secure access to medium-term funding; and extra long-term capital to provide a cushion against bad debts and allow them to lend to creditworthy borrowers.

The government’s plan addresses all three of these needs. The Bank of England will supply £200 billion in short-term funding; the government will underwrite £250 billion of medium-term finance; and it will also inject £25 billion in long-term capital initially – and perhaps up to £50 billion in total – in the form of preference shares that pay a fixed return and protect taxpayers’ investment.

Headline writers may describe the government plan as a £500 billion bailout, but that is completely misleading. The £200 billion consists of short-term secured loans; the £250 billion is a form of insurance, for which the government will be paid a premium; and the £50 billion is an investment that pays a return. This is not money for nothing. And while it is certainly true that taxpayers’ money is at risk, we will also share in the upside when the banks recover – as they are much more likely to do thanks to the government’s intervention. Most importantly, the risk of doing nothing – or of continuing to do too little, too late – is far greater. By keeping the UK banking system afloat, we are giving the economy a life raft. 

Many of the details of the government’s plan are still unclear. Ideally, the preference shares should pay a hefty interest rate to properly compensate taxpayers and give banks an incentive to seek private financing if and when they can. Taxpayers’ money should also come with strings attached, such as guarantees that banks will use the extra capital to lend to small businesses and individuals rather than pay extravagant dividends and unjustified bonuses. And, of course, the plan must be implemented speedily and efficiently.

We are by no means out of the woods yet. Global financial markets are in turmoil; other governments need to follow Britain’s bold lead soon. The UK economy has many other weaknesses: consumers are overladen with debt, often secured against housing that remains overpriced; unemployment is rising; food and energy prices remain painfully high; and the global gloom is hardly auspicious for exporters, despite the fillip of a weaker currency. What’s more, the banking package will swell the government’s already-large deficit – although borrowing to invest in banks need not increase the national debt in the long term.

But while 2009 will no doubt be unpleasant, the government’s actions should stave off economic collapse. Amid all the gloom, that is certainly good news.

Be bold, Gordon: buy up Britain's ailing banks

The time for half-measures is over. Britain is no longer in the grips of a credit crunch or even a financial crisis, it is suffering a full-on financial heart attack. Markets have seized up. Banks will no longer lend to each other. Credit to companies and individuals is drying up. Unless credit starts flowing again soon, a nasty recession – conceivably even a depression – looms, and with it massive job losses, bankruptcies, repossessions and a sharp fall in living standards. The government needs to act – now.

But what to do? Ken Livingstone, Seumas Milne and others argue that the government should turn its back on market economics. Since capitalism seems to be collapsing under the weight of its internal contradictions, the government should finish it off. More measured voices such as the TUC’s Brendan Barbour favour a ragbag of measures such as a new industrial policy. But all of them are missing the point. Righting the huge problems in financial markets certainly requires decisive government intervention, but lashing out at generally well-functioning product and labour markets is perilously misplaced. The last thing a heart-attack victim needs is to have a healthy leg amputated. The priority now is tackling the financial crisis; everything else is a dangerous diversion.

But while the government should not try to turn the clock back to the 1970s, it does need to change course. Its ad hoc approach will no longer do. The nationalisations of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley and the government-orchestrated rescue of HBOS were justified at the time. But damage limitation is no longer enough – not least since Lloyds’ rescue of HBOS seems to be dragging it down too. Picking up the pieces of individual banks will not restore confidence or get credit flowing around the economy again.

Across Europe, governments are rushing to following Ireland’s lead and guarantee (nearly) all deposits in the banking system. Here, the Treasury has just raised the guarantee on savers’ deposits to £50,000. But while it may soon be forced to extend a broader guarantee, this will not tackle the root causes of the crisis: a lack of capital in the financial system and sheer panic.

A cut in interest rates would do some good. Although inflation is well above the target rate of 2%, the Bank of England should slash rates when it meets on Thursday. As the global economy tanks, oil prices are sinking, so inflation is set to fall. Collapsing demand means that the real threat now is deflation, not inflation.

But a big cut in interest rates will not be enough. If banks are unwilling to lend, monetary policy alone is virtually useless – in Keynes’ words, it is like “pushing on a string”. Bolder measures are needed.

The US has opted for a $700 billion bailout. In theory, taking bad debts off banks’ books should reassure markets that that they are not about to go bust. Banks may be willing to lend to each other again, their share prices may recover somewhat, and investors – not least Asian governments and those of oil-rich states – may be willing to pump some of their huge cash reserves into them.

But the bail-out route is deeply flawed. It provides the most help to the banks that made the biggest mistakes. It exposes taxpayers to huge potential losses. And it does little to recapitalise the banking sector and thus encourage it to start lending again.

There is a better way. The government should buy stakes in – and in some cases, take over – stricken banks, an approach that worked well in Sweden in the early 1990s. With the government standing behind banks, the fear that they are about to go bust would vanish. An injection of taxpayers’ money would strengthen banks’ balance sheets, allowing them to start lending again. But it would not be money for nothing: the government could acquire preference shares, putting taxpayers first in line to be repaid if a bank fails and giving us all a share in the profits when banks – and the economy – recover.

A government recapitalisation of the banking sector, combined with tougher financial regulation to limit future excesses, would be good politics as well as good economics. With Labour so far behind in the polls, its only chance of recovery depends on rescuing the economy from the worst crisis since the 1930s. Decisive action would marginalise the Conservatives, who are unconvincing advocates for state intervention in the financial system and are in any case powerless to act. And since even David Cameron has been forced to concede that government injections of capital may be needed, the government has political cover to act.

Gordon Brown has shown that he can be bold when circumstances demand it. Now is such a time.