Do we have a Fabian Economy?

Now I am not sure that you can describe an Economy as Fabian, but if you could, then I am pretty sure that we have one.

Quintus Fabius Maximus was a Roman General who has entered the history books famous for defeating Hannibal by doing very little and being very defensive. It was not that simple, but that is the gist and his nickname, as a result, was cunctator from which the word cunctation derives (delaying or tardy action).

The Fabian Society is also named after him and they propose change through gradual rather than revolutionary achievement of socialism.

Bringing me back to our economy, I called it Fabian, because everything now happens at a snail's pace in the commercial property world, and to some degree in the residential sphere too. Very few are in a hurry to complete deals, view, exchange contracts or make decisions. Whether it is because we are cautious or perhaps due to our mojo going, the few transactions that are about seem to take an age.

Many people take their lead from those at the top, which in our case are politicians. At the moment, we have massive government expenditure, huge borrowing, support for Europe, interference in every level of the economy, increasing powers for the local authorities, policies being driven by the tabloid press, a burgeoning health sector, gigantic capital projects being approved and a redistribution of wealth with higher pensions, and higher taxes.

Whether you agree with the Fabian Economy, or not, in reality we have a Fabian government that is very socialist in practice. Perhaps it is either that the Lib Dems are much more powerful that we give them credit for, or the Fabian Society and the Bullingdon Club are one and the same.

Whilst Quintus Fabius Maximus was ultimately successful in the Second Punic War, I do feel that we are missing a trick and this is not the right road to travel, excuse the cliche.

4G or not 4G that is the question

I really don't know why the mobile phone companies are even contemplating 4G. I know that the government are keen because they need more revenue, but who actually wants it? Maybe a few kids, perhaps.

What I really want is a phone that works anywhere/ everywhere. I have my mobile to make calls and it is very annoying when I can't. Granted, it is useful for email, calendars and the like, but if it does not have a signal, then it is not a lot of use.

I am sure that if a telecoms company announced that their network had 100% coverage, we would all sign up. whether it was 2G, 3G or 50 million G.

People without a job might want to play games and watch videos on their phone all day, but what I want, what I really really want, is a phone that I can use as a phone and be able to call someone when I choose to, rather than when I am at the top of a hill.

What's the cause? Cash or the Banks

Before I begin, let me clarify that we do not deal in cash as a tax avoidance scheme.

However, I have noticed that cash, as a medium of payment, is drying up. I always find being paid in cash a bit of a hinderance as you either need to make a special trip to the bank, or if you put it in the petty cash tin, it seems to evaporate at an alarming rate.

Nonetheless, it has occurred to me that if cash is disappearing from the economy, then that is a bad thing. There are no publicised money supply figures for cash in circulation any longer, we just use M0 or M4, neither of which are reflective of the pound in the pocket/ under the bed. We need money for the economy to circulate and the multiplier to kick in effectively (for every £1 spent, £3.50 was traditionally generated down the line).

Are the real issues in the economy therefore attributed to the lack of cash, or are we still focused on the banks? I suspect that less cash is a symptom rather than a cause.

The great thing about cash is that it is an immediate payment and we could all do with a better cash-flow. Bring back the folding stuff, please.