Connect with us

Published

on

Before we get onto the budget and what Rachel Reeves might do to fiddle her fiscal rules and give herself a little more room to spend, I want you to ponder, for a moment, a recent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

This wasn’t one of those big OBR reports that get lots of attention – such as the documents and numbers it produces alongside each budget, full of the forecasts and analyses on the state of the economy and the public finances.

Instead, it was a chin-scratchy working paper that asked the question: if the government invests in something – say, a road or a railway, or a new school building – how long does it generally take for that investment to come good?

The answer, according to the report, was: actually quite a long time. Imagine the government spends a chunk of money – 1% of national income – on investment this year. In five years’ time that investment will only have created 0.4 per cent of GDP. In other words, in net terms, it’s costed us 0.6% of GDP.

But, and this is the important thing, look a little further off. A high-speed rail network is designed to last decades, and as those decades go on, it gradually improves people’s lives – think of the time saved by each commuter each day – small amounts each day, but they gradually mount up. So while the investment costs money in the short run, in the longer run, the benefits gradually mount.

The OBR’s calculation was that while a 1% of GDP public investment would only deliver 0.4% of GDP in five years, by the time 10 or 12 years had passed, the investment would be responsible for approaching 1% of GDP. In other words, it would have broken even. The money put in at the start would be fully earned back in benefits.

And by the time that investment was 50 years old, it would have delivered a whopping 2.5% of GDP in economic benefits. Future generations would benefit enormously – or so said the OBR’s sums.

More on Rachel Reeves

Having laid that out, I want you now to ponder the fiscal rules Rachel Reeves is confronted with at this, her first budget. Most pressingly, ponder the so-called debt rule, which insists that the chancellor must have the national debt – well, technically it’s “public sector net debt excluding Bank of England interventions” – falling within five years.

There is, it’s worth underlining at this point, nothing fundamental about this rule. Reeves inherited it from the Conservative Party, who only dreamed it up a few years ago, after COVID. Back before then, there have been countless rules that were supposed to prevent the national debt falling and, frankly, rarely ever succeeded.

But since Reeves wanted everyone to know, ahead of the election, just how serious Labour was about managing the public finances, she decided she would keep those Tory rules. One can understand the politics of this; the economics, less so – then again, I confess I’ve always been a bit sceptical about all these rules.

The upshot is, to meet this rule, she needs the national debt to be falling between the fourth and fifth year of the OBR’s five-year forecast. And according to the last OBR forecasts, which date back to Jeremy Hunt‘s last budget, it is. But not by much: only by £8.9bn. If that number rings a bell, it is because this is the much-vaunted, but not much understood, “headroom” figure a lot of people in Westminster like to drone on about.

Read more from Sky News:
Abolishing national insurance ‘could take several parliaments’
UK has no ‘credible’ plan to fund military equipment

And – if you’re taking these rules very literally, which everyone in Westminster seems to be doing – then the takeaway is that the chancellor really doesn’t have much room left to spend in the coming budget. She only has £8.9bn extra leeway to borrow!

Every spending decision – whether on investment, on the NHS, on benefits or indeed on anything else, happens in the shadow of this terrifying £8.9bn headroom figure. And since the chancellor has already explained, in her “black hole” event earlier this year, that the Conservatives promised a lot of extra spending they hadn’t budgeted for – not, perhaps, the entire £22bn figure she likes to cite but still a fair chunk – then it stands to reason there’s really “no money left”.

Or is there? So far we’ve been taking the fiscal rules quite literally but at this stage it’s worth asking the question: why? First off, there’s nothing gospel about these rules. There’s no tablet of stone that says the national debt needs to be falling in five years’ time.

Ed Conway's graphs

Second, remember what we learned from that OBR paper. Sometimes investments in things can actually generate more money than they cost. Yet fixating on a debt rule means the money you borrow to fund those investments is always counted as a negative – not a positive. And since the debt rule only looks five years into the future, you only ever see the cost and not the breakeven point.

Third, the debt rule used by this government actually focuses on a measure of the national debt which might not necessarily be the right one. That might sound odd until you realise there are actually quite a few different ways of expressing the scale of UK national debt.

The measure we currently use excludes the Bank of England, which seemed, a few years ago, to be a sensible thing to do. The Bank has been engaged in a policy called quantitative easing which involves buying and selling lots of government debt – which distorts the national debt. Perhaps it’s best to exclude it.

Except that recently those Bank of England interventions have actually been serving to drive up losses for the state. I won’t go into it in depth here for risk of causing a headache, but the upshot is most economists think focusing on a debt measure which is mostly being affected right now not by government decisions but by the central bank reversing a monetary policy exercise seems pretty perverse.

In other words, there’s a very strong argument that instead of focusing on the ex-BoE measure of net debt, the fiscal rules should instead be focusing on the overall measure of net debt. And here’s the thing: when you look at that measure of net debt, lo and behold it’s falling more between year four and five. In other words, there’s considerably more headroom: just under £25bn rather than just under £9bn based on that other Bank-excluding measure of debt.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Might Reeves declare, at the budget or in the run-up, that it makes far more sense to focus on overall PSND from now on? Quite plausibly. And while in one respect it’s a fiddle, in her defence it’s a fiddle from one silly rule to an ever so slightly less silly rule.

It would also mean she has more room to borrow to invest – if that’s what she chooses to do. But it doesn’t resolve the deeper issue: that both of these measures fixate on the short-term cost of debt without taking into account the long-term benefits of investment – back to that OBR paper.

If Reeves is determined to stick to the, some would say arbitrary, five-year deadline to get debt falling but wants to incorporate some measure of the benefits of investment, she could always choose one of two other measures for this rule.

She could focus on something called “public sector net financial liabilities” or “public sector net worth”. Both of these measures include some of the assets owned by the state as well as its debts – the upshot being that hopefully they reflect a little more of the benefits of investing more money.

The problem with these measures is they are subject to quite a lot of revision when, say, accountants change their opinion about the value of the national road or rail network. So some would argue these measures are prone to more volatility and fiddling than simple net debt.

Even so, these measures would dramatically transform the “headroom” picture. All of a sudden, Reeves would have over £60bn of headroom to play with. More than enough to splurge on loads of investments without breaking her fiscal rule.

Ed Conway's graphs

There’s one other change to the rule that would probably make more sense than any of the above: changing that five-year deadline to a 10 or even 15-year deadline. At that kind of horizon, a pound spent on a decent investment would suddenly look net positive for the economy rather than a drain.

Whether Reeves wants to do any of the above depends, ultimately, on how she wants to begin her term in office. Does she want to establish herself as a tough, fiscally conservative Chancellor – with a view, perhaps, to relaxing in later years? Or does she feel it’s more important to begin investing early, so some of the potential benefits might be obvious within a decade or so?

Really, there’s nothing in the economics to stop her choosing either path. Certainly not a set of fiscal rules which are riddled with flaws.

Continue Reading

Politics

Taiwan lawmaker calls for Bitcoin reserve at national conference

Published

on

By

Taiwan lawmaker calls for Bitcoin reserve at national conference

Taiwan lawmaker calls for Bitcoin reserve at national conference

Taiwanese lawmaker Ko Ju-Chun has called on the government to consider adding Bitcoin to its national reserves, suggesting it could serve as a hedge against global economic uncertainty.

Ko, a legislator at-large in Taiwan’s legislative body, the Legislative Yuan, took to X on Friday to report that he had advocated Bitcoin (BTC) investment by the Taiwanese government at the National Conference on May 9.

In his remarks, Ko cited Bitcoin’s potential to become a hedge amid global economic risks and urged Taiwan to recognize the cryptocurrency alongside gold and foreign exchange reserves to boost its financial resilience.

Taiwan lawmaker calls for Bitcoin reserve at national conference
Source: Ko Ju-Chun

Ko’s announcement came shortly after the legislator held talks with Samson Mow, who advocates for Bitcoin adoption by states like El Salvador at his BTC tech firm Jan3.

Taiwan is an export-oriented economy

Ko highlighted that Taiwan is an export-driven economy that has experienced significant fluctuations in its national currency, the New Taiwan dollar, amid global inflation and intensifying geopolitical risks.

“We currently have a gold reserve of 423 metric tons, and our foreign exchange reserves amount to $577 billion, including investments in US Treasury bonds,” the lawmaker stated.

In a scenario of more intense currency volatility or potential regional conflicts, Taiwan may “very likely be unable to ensure the security and liquidity,” Ko continued, adding that Bitcoin could be a great addition to Taiwan’s reserves for several reasons.

Law, Investments, Taiwan, Samson Mow, Policy, Bitcoin Reserve
Ko Ju-Chun advocated for the adoption of Bitcoin by the Taiwanese government before the Legislative Yuan. Source: Ko Ju-Chun

“Bitcoin has been operating for over 15 years. It has a fixed total supply, is decentralized, and is resistant to censorship. Many countries are focusing on its hedging attributes. At the same time, in intense situations, it may not face the risk of embargo,” he said.

Bitcoin is not the only solution

Referring to many global initiatives considering Bitcoin adoption as a reserve asset, Ko stressed that he’s not advocating for Bitcoin as the “only solution” to rising economic challenges.

Instead, the legislator suggested adding a “small proportion of Bitcoin” into the diversified assets as tools for sovereign asset allocation and risk hedging, and backup capacity of Taiwan’s financial system.

Related: Trump tricked into pushing XRP for crypto reserve: Report

He previously suggested that Taiwan could allocate a maximum of 5% of its $50 billion reserve to Bitcoin in an X post on May 6.

Taiwan lawmaker calls for Bitcoin reserve at national conference
Source: Ko Ju-Chun

“When exchange rate risk and regional uncertainty increase, it is time to introduce new tools to construct a more flexible financial strategy framework,” Ko said, adding:

“As former Dean Chen Chong said, Bitcoin is the gun of the digital era. It may also be the gold of the digital era, the silver of the digital era. Or it could be gunpowder. A wise nation will not let weapons be in others’ hands.”

The news comes as Taiwan is emerging as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, with the Financial Supervisory Commission pushing institutional trials of crypto custody services in late 2024.

Mainland China continues to maintain its hostile stance on cryptocurrency after imposing a ban on multiple crypto activities, including mining, in 2021.

Magazine: Adam Back says Bitcoin price cycle ’10x bigger’ but will still decisively break above $100K

Continue Reading

Politics

Germany seizes $38M in crypto from Bybit hack-linked eXch exchange

Published

on

By

Germany seizes M in crypto from Bybit hack-linked eXch exchange

Germany seizes M in crypto from Bybit hack-linked eXch exchange

German law enforcement seized 34 million euros ($38 million) in cryptocurrency from eXch, a cryptocurrency platform allegedly used to launder funds stolen after Bybit’s record-breaking $1.4 billion hack.

The seizure, announced on May 9 by Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and Frankfurt’s main prosecutor’s office, involved multiple crypto assets, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Litecoin (LTC) and Dash (DASH). The move marks the third-largest crypto confiscation in the BKA’s history.

The authorities also seized eXch’s German server infrastructure with over eight terabytes of data and shut down the platform, the announcement added.

eXch exchanged crypto without AML

In the statement, the BKA described eXch as a “swapping” service that allowed users to exchange various crypto assets without implementing Anti-Money Laundering (AML) measures.

The platform had operated since 2014 and reportedly facilitated about $1.9 billion in crypto transfers, some of which were believed to be of “criminal origin,” including assets laundered during the Bybit hack.

Germany seizes $38M in crypto from Bybit hack-linked eXch exchange
Example of flow of Bybit exploit funds moving through eXch and bridging back and forth between Ether and Bitcoin. Source: TRM Labs

“Among other things, a portion of the $1.5 billion stolen from the Bybit crypto exchange, which was hacked on Feb. 21, 2025, is said to have been exchanged via eXch,” the authorities wrote.

Multisig, FixedFloat among laundering cases

According to a post by crypto sleuth ZachXBT, eXch was also involved in laundering millions of funds from other crypto thefts and exploits, including Multisig, FixedFloat and the $243 million Genesis creditor theft.

Those were in addition to “countless phishing drainer services over the past few years with refusal to block addresses and freeze orders,” ZachXBT said.

Germany, AML, Crimes, Hacks, Policy, Bybit
Source: ZachXBT

ZachXBT was among the first security analysts to report on eXch’s links to laundering $35 million of crypto assets stolen from Bybit soon after the hack was confirmed.

Related: Hacken CEO sees ‘no shift’ in crypto security as April hacks hit $357M

“Lazarus Group transferred 5K ETH from the Bybit Hack to a new address and began laundering funds via eXch (a centralized mixer) and bridging funds to Bitcoin via Chainflip,” ZachXBT wrote in a Telegram post on Feb. 22.

eXch announced termination of services by May 1

After initially denying involvement in laundering funds from the Bybit hack, eXch eventually announced it would cease operations by May 1 in a Bitcoin Talk post published in mid-April.

“Even though we have been able to operate despite some failed attempts to shut down our infrastructure […], we don’t see any point in operating in a hostile environment where we are the target of SIGINT [Signals Intelligence] simply because some people misinterpret our goals,” it wrote.

Addressing the seizure, senior public prosecutor Benjamin Krause stressed the importance of action against “quick and anonymous opportunities for money laundering for any amount.”

“Crypto swapping is an essential component of the underground economy, used to conceal incriminated funds from illegal activities such as hacking or trading in stolen payment card data, thus making them available to perpetrators,” he said.

Magazine: Finally blast into space with Justin Sun, Vietnam’s new national blockchain: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Politics

Can a trade deal with Trump save Starmer?

Published

on

By

Can a trade deal with Trump save Starmer?

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

With Ruth away, Beth and Harriet are joined by Salma Shah, a former Conservative special adviser from 2014-2018 and now a political commentator.

They unpack Donald Trump’s surprise UK trade deal announcement and what it means for Sir Keir Starmer, who’s also landed a deal with India and is gearing up for key EU negotiations.

But while the global optics look strong, the domestic mood is tense. Harriet has some advice for the Labour backbenchers who are unhappy over welfare cuts and the winter fuel allowance policy.

Also – does Sir Keir need a hand with his comms?

Come and join us live on Tuesday 20 May at Cadogan Hall in London, tickets available now: https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

Remember you can also watch us on YouTube!

Continue Reading

Trending