Ross Clark

Like Liz Truss, Sam Bankman-Fried will be the stuff of pub quizzes: who lost his entire $16 billion fortune in days? A quick trawl of the internet suggest his only real challenger in losing so much money so quickly was Masayoshi Son, the founder of Softbank, who was estimated to have made a paper loss of $70 billion in the dotcom crash. But he wasn’t completely wiped out, and retained considerable wealth as Softbank rose again. Bankman-Fried, on the other hand, is believed now to be worth pretty much zero following last week’s collapse of the crypto exchange he founded, FTX. At its peak, Bankman-Fried’s stake is estimated to have been worth $26 billion, and it was still worth many billions in the days before its sudden collapse. All this by the age of 30.

Is the inflationary spike past its peak? That is the obvious reaction to the news that US inflation fell to 7.7 per cent in October, down from 8.2 per cent in September and significantly lower than the 8.0 per cent that markets had been expecting. Clearly, inflation remains high, but US inflation is now lower than at any stage since January. A further couple of months of falls would seem to indicate that, for now, inflation has been tamed. It ought to come as no surprise. The US Federal Reserve has been fighting inflation aggressively all year with interest rates. It is some way ahead of the curve being followed by the Bank of England and the European Central Bank. Moreover, a slowing economy ought to bring down prices as consumers draw in their horns.

We can be grateful for small mercies. 4 November 2022 will go down as the day when a presenter on the Today programme finally challenged a dodgy statistic trying to blame economic collapse on Brexit. The statistic in question was put forward by former Bank of England governor Mark Carney in an interview with the Financial Times last month in which he said: 'Put it this way, in 2016 the British economy was 90 per cent the size of Germany’s. Now it is less than 70 per cent.'     Was Carney’s ultra-loose monetary policy not part of the cause of today's inflationary environment? Mishal Husain, to her credit, put this to Carney this morning, pointing out that economists had challenged this figure.

So much for those ‘stranded assets’ which former Bank of England governor Mark Carney and many others tried to warn us about. It wasn’t long ago that climate activists were urging the world to dump shares in oil companies, not just because we should want to punish them for climate change but because, they said, oil companies’ fortunes were on a downward trajectory as the world turned green. ‘The exposure of UK investors, including insurance companies, to these shifts is potentially huge,’ Carney said in 2015. ‘Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.’ But that’s not how it looked in BP’s boardroom this morning as it announced profits of £7.1 billion ($8.2 billion) in the third quarter.

Britain’s economic problems can, of course, be laid at the door of Brexit. We know this because it was asserted on a BBC podcast which went viral over the weekend – and no one would question the BBC’s objectivity. But maybe there ought just to be a scintilla of doubt in the heads of the staunchest remainers given this morning’s news that eurozone inflation has reached 10.7 per cent – even higher than Britain’s latest CPI figure of 10.1 per cent. Markets had been expecting Eurozone inflation to stay a little below the 10 per cent mark. Far from Britain parting off from the rest of Europe and entering a death spiral, it is remarkable how Britain and the EU are converging in their respective economic crises. As for inflation, so for economic growth.

Rishi Sunak deserves one of those ‘climate champion’ badges they hand out at primary schools. Why? Because he is not going to fly to the COP27 summit in Egypt – thereby saving 1.65 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to the World Land Trust’s carbon calculator. So what if Ed Miliband thinks it is a failure of leadership? There is no point in any UK Prime Minister travelling to any more of these summits when the world’s largest carbon emitters have made it perfectly plain that they have no intention of copying Britain’s example. They will not be putting themselves under legal commitment to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050 or any other hard date. Xi Jinping, whose country is responsible for a third of the world’s emissions, won’t be going.

Given the swift defenestration of his predecessor after her mini-Budget panicked the markets, it is not surprising that Rishi Sunak has delayed the Treasury’s autumn statement until 17 November. No set of fiscal plans will satisfy everyone, but markets and public opinion do seem to be especially sensitive to changes in fiscal policy at present. And there’s this: left-leaning thinktank the Resolution Foundation this morning said delaying the statement for just two weeks will reduce the apparent black hole in the public finances as the cost of government borrowing comes down. The two-week delay could create the illusion of an extra £15 billion in the government’s coffers (or rather £15 billion less borrowing), mitigating the need for spending cuts and tax rises.

Inflation, asserted Rishi Sunak in his first PMQs, makes us all poorer. That is not entirely true – people relying entirely on the state pension, for example, will be fully compensated for this year’s high inflation, and no doubt some of Sunak’s former colleagues in the hedge fund industry have found a way to profit, too. But generally, he is right. Working people have on the whole suffered a large drop in their real wages. In the year to April, median weekly pay rose by 5 per cent from £610 to £640. In many years that would be a substantial rise, but when adjusted for inflation it comes out as a fall of 2.6 per cent.

Is low unemployment causing us more problems than we realise? The suggestion might seem absurd, offensive even. It’s reminiscent of the days of Mrs Thatcher’s supposedly ‘cruel’ monetarism, when we had three million unemployed. Some on the fringes liked to argue that unemployment was good for the economy because it made people work harder, being fearful for their jobs. Mass redundancies would not, of course, help the economy now or at any other time. If a million people were to lose their jobs, as happened in the early 1980s, that would be a million households suffering a collapse in the spending power. As well as a human tragedy, it would be an economic one, too. Many graduates are not doing graduate-level jobs But then who mentioned anyone losing their jobs?