The Bank of England Missed Its Chance to Raise Rates and Break Britain’s Cheap Money Addiction
by Jaffa Levy
·
Britain has been told for years that cheap money was a form of kindness. It was not. It inflated houses, lifted financial assets, punished savers, trapped workers in rent, and forced the welfare state to subsidise a cost structure that no longer allows ordinary wages to carry ordinary life.
Some voices in the media now say the Bank of England should cut interest rates. They say the economy is weak, households are exhausted, mortgage holders are under pressure, and higher borrowing costs will only deepen Britain's misery.
That argument sounds compassionate. It is in fact one of the reasons Britain is in this condition.
For more than a generation, Britain has confused rising asset prices with prosperity. House prices have been allowed to rise far beyond wages. The stock market and pension assets have been inflated by cheap money. Property owners have watched paper wealth multiply. Younger workers, renters, single income families and the low paid have been pushed further away from security.
This was not an accident. It was the political economy of cheap money.
The core argument is simple:
Cheap money did not make Britain richer.
It made assets more expensive.
It rewarded those who already owned houses, shares and pension wealth.
It punished those whose only asset was their wage.
It forced the state to patch up poverty through benefits, while the underlying cost structure remained untouched.
The question is no longer whether Britain can tolerate higher rates. The question is whether Britain can survive another cycle of monetary weakness dressed up as kindness.
The housing market is the evidence
The most visible ruin is housing.
In much of England, the price of a home has become detached from ordinary earnings. A median worker cannot realistically buy a median house without two incomes, family support, inheritance, extreme debt, or a long period of sacrifice. The language of affordability has become almost insulting. A ratio may improve slightly on paper while the lived reality remains brutal.
The deposit is larger. Rent consumes the saving capacity. Food, energy, council tax, transport and childcare eat the remainder. The younger worker is told affordability has improved while still being locked out of ownership.
Housing became the main transmission belt of cheap money:
Lower rates allowed buyers to borrow more.
Higher borrowing capacity pushed up house prices.
Rising prices enriched existing owners.
Renters faced higher deposits, higher rents and lower saving power.
The young were told to work harder in a market that had already moved away from them.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the ordinary family economy worked differently. A single breadwinner could often support a household, buy or rent a home, and build a life with far less financial engineering. That period must not be romanticised. Britain then had its own serious problems: industrial conflict, inflation, poor housing stock and lower consumer choice. But the basic bargain was more intact. Work translated more directly into shelter and family formation.
Today, two incomes are often not enough.
That is not progress. That is monetary decay concealed by asset inflation.
Cheap money inflated the assets of the old and priced out the young
The great fraud of modern British economics is that rising house prices were treated as national success.
They were not. They were a transfer.
When interest rates are held artificially low, the present value of future income streams rises. That pushes up the price of assets: houses, equities, bonds, private equity portfolios, commercial property and pension holdings. Those who already own assets become wealthier. Those who depend on wages are forced to chase prices that move faster than their earnings.
This is where Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard cut through the polite language of central banking.
Interest rates are not just a policy instrument. They are a price: the price of time, savings and capital. When central banks suppress that price, they falsify the economy. They make debt appear cheaper than it is. They encourage borrowing over saving. They reward leverage. They punish cash. They make speculation look like prudence.
The winners and losers were not accidental:
The property owner was rewarded.
The landlord was rewarded.
The leveraged investor was rewarded.
The pension fund was rewarded.
The saver was punished.
The renter was punished.
The young worker was punished.
The family without inherited wealth was punished.
Cheap money did not abolish class. It refinanced it.
Welfare now subsidises the asset economy
The ugliest part of the system is that welfare has increasingly become a subsidy for a broken cost structure.
Universal Credit is often discussed as though it were only about unemployment. That is false. Many claimants are in work, or move in and out of work, or live in households where wages do not meet rent, childcare and basic living costs. Welfare and work are no longer separate worlds. They have merged because wages no longer reliably carry the cost of life.
That is an indictment. It means the labour market no longer performs one of its basic functions: allowing an employed person to live securely from work.
The hidden subsidy works like this:
Rent is too high, so housing support rises.
Pay is too low, so Universal Credit tops it up.
Childcare is too expensive, so the state expands support.
Energy is too costly, so emergency schemes appear.
The worker receives the payment, but the wider structure protects landlords, employers, utilities, lenders and asset owners.
This is the political obscenity hidden in plain sight. The poor are the formal recipients of welfare, but the economic benefit often flows upward. Public money props up private rents. Wage support protects low wage business models. Housing support protects inflated property values. Emergency cost of living payments protect a system that made basic life unaffordable.
The welfare state is therefore not merely rescuing the poor. It is rescuing the price structure that made them poor.
Real wages have not carried the burden
Britain's defenders will say employment remains high and wages have risen recently. That is true, but insufficient.
The real question is not whether wages have risen in some months or some sectors. The question is whether wages have kept pace with the full cost of secure life: housing, rent, childcare, transport, energy, food, tax, pension saving and family formation.
They have not.
If wages had genuinely kept pace with housing, rents and essential costs, Universal Credit would not be needed on this scale. If one income could still secure a family home, the country would not be so dependent on debt, benefits, parental deposits and emergency support.
The British worker has been trapped between two inflations:
Consumer inflation eats the weekly shop.
Asset inflation destroys the route to ownership.
Rent inflation prevents saving.
Childcare inflation forces two earners to run harder merely to stand still.
Tax and benefit withdrawal punish marginal improvement.
The first inflation is visible every month. The second is the longer crime. It has unfolded over decades in the housing market, the stock market and the structure of inherited advantage.
The stock market and house prices are not signs of health
When the stock market rises while the real economy weakens, commentators call it confidence. Often it is something else: liquidity looking for somewhere to go.
Cheap money pushes capital into assets. It encourages investors to pay higher prices for future earnings. It inflates pension portfolios and equity valuations. That may enrich those already inside the market, but it does not automatically build factories, raise productivity, improve wages or make housing affordable.
This is the Misesian point. A boom created by credit expansion is not necessarily real prosperity. It may be malinvestment: capital sent into the wrong places by false price signals.
Britain's asset economy has been full of these distortions:
Property speculation became a substitute for productive investment.
Buy to let became a pension strategy.
Planning scarcity became a capital gain.
Land became a financial instrument.
Housing became a store of wealth before it was allowed to remain a place to live.
That is not capitalism in its healthy form. It is a rentier economy inflated by monetary policy and protected by political cowardice.
Why cutting rates would be fatal
Cutting rates now would not heal this structure. It would protect it.
It would tell the property market that the Bank will again rescue valuations. It would tell borrowers that leverage remains politically favoured. It would tell savers that their discipline is still expendable. It would tell sterling investors that the inflation target is negotiable. It would tell workers that their wages will again be sacrificed to preserve the asset economy.
The media case for lower rates is dangerous because the relief would not flow evenly:
Cheaper credit would support house prices.
It would ease pressure on landlords and leveraged owners.
It would reduce the urgency of correcting Britain's housing failure.
It would protect asset values before it protected wages.
It would again reward those who borrowed against rising assets over those who saved from earned income.
The pain of high rates is immediate and visible. The pain of cheap money is slower and more socially destructive. It appears as delayed adulthood, childlessness, family breakdown, overcrowding, dependence on parents, dependence on benefits, dependence on landlords, and dependence on debt.
That is the misery cheap money has produced.
The Bank must stop protecting the illusion
The Bank of England cannot solve planning failure. It cannot build houses. It cannot repair productivity. It cannot reform welfare. It cannot raise real wages by decree.
But it can stop making the damage worse.
It can stop pretending that cheap credit is compassion. It can stop treating high asset prices as harmless. It can stop protecting a debt saturated economy from the consequences of its own structure.
It can stop forcing savers, renters and young workers to subsidise the asset rich through negative real returns and inflated property values.
A serious policy would say this plainly:
House prices must be allowed to fall relative to wages.
Asset prices must no longer be treated as sacred.
Sterling must be defended.
Inflation expectations must be crushed before they harden.
Government borrowing must not be disguised by cheap money.
Welfare must stop functioning as a hidden subsidy to landlords and low wage employers.
The Bank should therefore raise rates, not because rate rises are painless, but because the alternative is another round of monetary deceit.
The real conclusion
The old British bargain has broken.
A single wage once carried more of a family's life. Not perfectly, not universally, and not without hardship. But the direction was clear: work could become security. Today, work too often becomes survival. The difference is not simply globalisation, immigration, planning, taxation or technology. It is money.
Cheap money inflated the price of shelter. It inflated financial assets. It made the already propertied richer. It weakened the bargaining position of those paid only in wages. It forced the state to patch wages with welfare. It turned millions into tenants of a system they could never realistically own.
That is why lowering interest rates now would be a fatal mistake.
Britain does not need another dose of the drug that produced the illness.
It needs monetary discipline, lower asset inflation, honest rates, and a political admission that rising house prices were never a national triumph. They were the mechanism by which millions were quietly dispossessed.
