A selection of FT headlines from the barrage of email newsletters that I receive from them each morning provide very clear indication of the scale of the actual, underlying, realisation that is hitting the world economy right now as a consequence of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, even if few people are willing to address the obvious consequences that are going to arise, as I do in this morning's video.

First, there is the false hope:

It appears these vessels did pass through the Strait. But it would appear they paid Iran to do so, and that will, given current tensions, provoke a US reaction. Note too, that the oil was headed for China. Two tankers will not solve its oil crisis, or anyone else's, come to that.

And, have no doubt that this oil crisis is spreading. India is bracing itself for the economic shock of what is happening. Modi is, I am sure, preparing himself for the civil unrest that might arise as a consequence.

That civil unrest is already developing in Africa, and both cases lend support to my thesis that, almost inevitably, this Crisis is going to hit the world's poorest people, whether in the poorest countries or the poorest people in our country, the hardest, which is precisely why we must have intervention to prevent hardship.

At the same time, it is clear that the case for making that intervention is not being heard amongst the financial elite. This headline refers to a reaction in the US, where some US Fed officials are very worried about signals being given that interest rates might be cut when they would wish to increase them in the face of inflationary pressure, when increasing rates can have no benefit at all when that inflationary pressure arises from absolute physical shortages of supply. The battle to stop neoliberals making everything about the coming crisis very much worse has clearly started.

And let us not pretend that the UK will be exempt from the consequences of this crisis. This is just one headline indicating the fact that it will be:

Meanwhile, Rachael Reeves tried to suppress her inner panic by, as ever, outsourcing the solution to her problems to the market, only to find that they told her that they were not playing ball:

Rachael Reeves has a lesson to learn, and it is one that will contradict everything she has ever learned and done. It is that on this occasion it is down to her, as a politician, to act. She cannot rely on the market to do so.

If she does, she will fail, and people will suffer. Markets are not interested in relieving suffering. The companies she usually talks to are only interested in exploiting. Nothing that will relieve the current crisis will, in that case, happen by the voluntary action of markets.

It will be down to her (if she is still in office) to take the necessary steps to prevent extreme suffering in the UK. I outline what these are in this morning's video. The question is, has she got the courage to act? The same question will be asked of almost every politician in the world very soon. As yet, no one knows the answer, but there is one thing that I think we can predict: they will all react too late. That will cost lives and have massive lasting consequences.

We are on the edge of a precipice, and so far, the world's politicians have chosen to ignore that fact. Maybe that will be enough to consign their neoliberal thinking to history. That is the only glimmer of hope I can find in all this, but it will come at far too high a price

PDF of article