The Anti-Christ, the Devil and George Osborne (left to right). Some see a family resemblance.

I dismissed as idle speculation the suggestion that George Osborne is the economic Anti-Christ.  However, as the publicity around the spring budget increased, I suppose it was inevitable that this allegation would be taken seriously (despite the interview on the Today programme, see above).
            The origin of this accusation seems to be an economic interpretation of a passage in the book of Matthew (24:24), that a leader will appear claiming to be anointed by GOD, who will offer humanity the road to Salvation.  While it is true that Osborne is endorsed by Rupert Murdoch and by Financial Markets, this is not the same as being anointed by GOD;  at least, not yet (though the interpretation is not without verisimilitude). 
            The heart of the debate is whether Chancellor Osborne has through his economic policies set humanity on a course for economic Redemption (in which case the prefix "anti" should be dropped); or that it is a false road (in which case there would be prima facie evidence that he is, indeed, the economic Anti-Christ).  Many consider that the argument is pointless, because for such an epoch struggle the Devil would choose the United States, China or Germany, not some minor player in the world economy.  While I am sympathetic to this view, it overlooks another passage in the book of Matthew, that "a child shall lead us" (18:1).  This passage could mean that a country in the economic Third Division might Show The Way (certainly Thatcher thought this to be the case in the 1980s).
             Thus, the issue of whether the Chancellor is the economic Anti-Christ is an empirical matter inseparable from his economic strategy.  This strategy proposes to redeem the British economy (and by implication all of humanity) through dramatically reducing the size and role of the public sector.  As is well documented, this strategy is based analytically on the distinction between minor ("venial") sins and major ("mortal") ones (a clear statement of this distinction can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, find it on Google).  Examples of the former, which can be forgiven through acts of charity, are corporate corruption, business fraud, and inter alia, the crimes of the rich derivative from greed. 
            Mortal sins are those which result in eternal damnation.  Examples of these are:  pubic sector fiscal deficits;  above-poverty pensions for the civil service (or anyone else);  and public sector "fat cats".  The essential evil of public service compared to the pursuit of private gain can be demonstrated by salary comparisons.  It appears that there are literally thousands of public sector lay-abouts earning over £100,000.  Compare that to Chris Hyman, head of firm Serco, to which erstwhile public services are now outsourced. This hard-working CEO receives a meager £5,000,000 (yes, six zeros).  To seriously entertain the Anti-Christ characterization of the Chancellor, one would have to feel outrage at the just reward received by this dedicated private pillager of the public purse.
            The specific outcome offered by the Chancellor is a healthy, growing economy, redeemed from its degenerate dependency on unproductive and sinful public service.  To this end, the evil of public expenditure must be reduced.  Now, even in the world inhabited by the Chancellor (with or without the prefix "anti"), household incomes derive from employment (the last word broadly defined to include the rich).  Therefore, an decrease in public expenditure (The Bad) requires a compensating increase in private expenditure (The Good).  In both the experience of the unwashed rest of us and the virtuously virtual world of the Chancellor, households spend out of their incomes.  It follows that household spending ("consumption" by "Consumers") depends on the incomes from their employment (we are edging into Rocket Science now). 
            During October-December 2010, the economy did not grow healthily;  it declined by -0.6 percent (predicted here in One Big Dip, 14 August 2010).  On the basis of the consumption-income relationship, even the Chancellor would agree that when public expenditure goes down, private expenditure must go up by the same amount to do no worse than a decline of -0.6 percent.  Private expenditure must increase by more than public expenditure to nudge that decline into the positive range.
            It is difficult to calculate by exactly how much the Chancellor will reduce public expenditure in the immediate future.   A figure of two percent for the coming budget period is a modest guess.  This more-than-compensating increase in private expenditure must come from exports and private investment.  Statistics from the OECD for January and February indicate that UK exports increased by about 4 percent in constant prices.  This increase was due to growth in Germany, the United States and China (when UK growth was negative).  Let us have the optimism of the virtuous and hope that rate holds for all of 2011.  However, because evil public expenditure is more than twice the share of national income that exports are, this combination (exports +4, public expenditure -2) implies a small decline in total expenditure.  Export recovery will at best result in a continued, deeper decline.
            Well, by elimination the hopes of the Chancellor rest on private investment.  In this context there is much talk of the rejuvenation of a magical creature called Small Business (aka Small Capital), which is innovative, dynamic and bold beyond imagination.  It is to be regretted, therefore, that by the usual definition small businesses generate a very small portion of UK private investment.  As hopes dwindle down to a precious few, we are left with Big Capital to bring the economic redemption the Chancellor preaches. 
            Salvation via Big Capital presents two problems.  First, at about 15 percent of national income in 2010, investment by Big Capital in the UK must increase to approximately 20 percent to take up the slack left by the combination of public expenditure decline and the rise in exports.  This required increase of 33% (20/15, the higher mathematics of Rocket Science) might usefully be compared to actual behavior in the last three months of 2010, which was -2.5% (UK Office for National Statistics).
            Second Problem: Big Capital is the economic Anti-Christ.
           

Big capital prepares to fly to our rescue.

Take to the streets in London on Saturday, 26 March.

Economic Theory

Political Economy

Other policy reports