There is something faintly nostalgic now about these periodic warnings that Britain is being “punished by the markets”. You can almost hear the rustle of yellowing Treasury briefing papers from the 1970s, dusted off and recirculated for another generation of commentators raised to believe that the British state survives only by the grace of anonymous bond traders somewhere in the City, New York or Singapore.
The names change. The phrases are updated. “Investor confidence”, “credibility”, “bond vigilantes”, “market discipline”. Yet the underlying worldview remains stubbornly intact, preserved like an Edwardian steam engine still ceremonially operated long after electrification made it obsolete.
Jeremy Warner’s article “Britain’s soaring borrowing costs have little to do with Brexit” is interesting not so much for what it explains, but for what it unconsciously reveals. The central contradiction sits almost openly on the page. Britain, we are told, cannot technically default because it issues its own currency. Yet we are also told that crediting pounds to settle obligations would somehow constitute “default by another name”.
This is the peculiar metaphysics of modern economic commentary. Payment is simultaneously possible and impossible. The issuer of sterling can always make sterling payments, but is said to be financially constrained in much the same way as a household or corporation that cannot hand over the thing it owes. The contradiction is never resolved because confronting it would collapse the entire moral architecture surrounding public debt.
The operational reality is far, far duller than the drama requires. The British government spends through instructions authorised by Parliament and settled via the Bank of England. Gilt issuance does not provide the state with pounds it otherwise lacks. The pounds necessarily appear first within the banking system before they can be exchanged for government securities afterwards, with redemption merely reversing that exchange at maturity. Bond sales are therefore better understood as an interest rate maintenance operation and a reserve drain than as a funding necessity.
This was once reasonably well understood inside government institutions. One suspects it still is, at least in the quieter corners where settlement systems actually have to function. But public discourse operates according to a different requirement. The state must continually be depicted as financially dependent upon “the markets”, because that framing imposes a useful discipline on democratic ambition.
Hence the endless invocation of “borrowing costs”, as though Britain were a precarious provincial authority begging for overdraft extensions rather than the monopoly issuer of sterling liabilities. The country is described as “paying more to borrow” in the same way medieval theologians once described storms as divine displeasure. Markets become an anthropomorphic force expressing moral judgement upon insufficiently virtuous governments.
Yet the article itself quietly concedes the actual mechanism. Yields largely reflect expectations about future Bank Rate settings and inflation. Quite so. Ten-year gilts are, after all, a sequence of expected short-term interest rates plus term structure preferences. The state determines the overnight rate directly through the Bank of England and chooses the maturity structure of issuance voluntarily through the Debt Management Office.
Britain could issue shorter duration debt. It could cease issuing long-dated gilts altogether. It could operate predominantly through Treasury bills. It could remunerate reserves differently. It could stop constructing artificial refinancing exposure in order to preserve a particular ideological presentation of fiscal policy. None of these possibilities are entertained because the institutional culture still treats bond issuance as though sterling remained convertible into something external and scarce.
That is why references to “another 1976” continue to appear long after the underlying monetary regime disappeared. The 1976 crisis occurred within an entirely different international architecture involving foreign currency pressures and the lingering assumptions of the Bretton Woods era. Yet it survives in British commentary as a kind of secular morality tale warning governments against excessive ambition.
The article also illustrates the curious elasticity of “structural reform”. The term now functions less as a precise economic category than as a permanent justification for austerity-adjacent politics. Public services deteriorate because insufficient reform has occurred. Infrastructure weakens because insufficient reform has occurred. Growth stagnates because insufficient reform has occurred. The possibility that decades of constrained public investment, privatisation fragmentation, wage suppression and financialisation might themselves constitute the structural problem rarely intrudes.
Instead we are offered the familiar lament that democratic populations have become unwilling to accept “sensible spending adjustments”. Rachel Reeves’s winter fuel debacle is presented as evidence of political irresponsibility among voters rather than evidence that electorates are growing tired of being told, year after year, that national decline is both unavoidable and somehow virtuous.
Notice too the article’s implicit assumption that inflation emerges primarily from excessive accommodation by the state and central bank. The Bank of England is criticised for supposedly prioritising employment over price stability, as though preserving unemployment as an anti-inflation device were simply the natural order of things. The deeper question of why Britain remains structurally dependent on volatile energy markets, fragile supply chains, speculative housing costs and imported essentials receives comparatively little attention.
There is a broader melancholy running beneath all this. Warner correctly observes that Western electorates no longer expect rising living standards. But he misidentifies the cause. The problem is not that democracies have become incapable of imposing sufficient discipline upon themselves. It is that political systems increasingly operate within self-imposed financial myths inherited from another age.
Governments behave as though they are revenue constrained entities operating on a fixed stock of money, even while the underlying monetary machinery functions entirely differently. Public investment becomes paralysed by debt ratios. Infrastructure decays while accountants debate affordability. Entire generations are taught that prosperity depends upon appeasing bond traders rather than mobilising real resources.
And so the rituals continue. Another article about market confidence. Another warning about borrowing costs. Another suggestion that Britain’s primary challenge is restoring credibility with investors.
Meanwhile the actual productive capacity of the country, the transport systems, energy networks, housing stock, industrial capability, healthcare infrastructure and scientific base, receives attention only intermittently and usually too late.
Future historians will likely struggle to understand this period at all. They will observe a sovereign currency issuer voluntarily constraining itself with obsolete doctrines inherited from fixed exchange rate systems, while simultaneously insisting those constraints were natural economic laws.
Perhaps they will conclude that ours was not an age of economic scarcity so much as an age of institutional superstition.
Chat about this and any other MMT topics on Discord with the growing New Wayland community . New members can click this invite link which will add the server to your Discord account