A recipe for national bankruptcy
No matter how many times a policy of profligacy leads to disaster - be it through debasement of the currency, allowing the money supply to get out of control, house price or stock market bubbles or building up vast amounts of government debt - there are some people who refuse to get the message that governments cannot magic up infinate resources without consequences.
These people are always guaranteed to blame the person or government who clears up the mess for the pain involved, not the person or government on whose watch the problem was created.
Hat tip to Political Betting where a number of posters such as Richard Nabavi and others pointed out that this article in the Guardian is an excellent example of such a mindset.
Lots of weeping and wailing about how dreadful the cuts are and how Miliband ought to do more to oppose them.
Without the least scintilla of recognition that when an incoming government inherits a situation where it is spending four pounds for every three coming in and that the national debt has just doubled to 1.2 trillion pounds, such a position is completely unsustainable and there really is no alternative to cuts, tax increases, or some combination of both.
The nearest things to constructive suggestions to deal with Britain's fiscal and debt problems in the entire article are the references to a campaign (with which the author of the article is associated) that the government should make it more difficult for people to employ both legal and illegal means of getting out of paying tax (avoidance and evasion). As this is about the one thing that the government, opposition and press all agree on it doesn't get us very far.
While I would be the first to admit that we cannot afford complacency, Britain is showing the first signs of recovery, though things are still extremely difficult for many businesses and familes.
But if attempts to keep spending under control were abandoned and borrowing allowed to increase, it would not take too long at all before this country was in the same kind of mess as Greece or Cyprus.
These people are always guaranteed to blame the person or government who clears up the mess for the pain involved, not the person or government on whose watch the problem was created.
Hat tip to Political Betting where a number of posters such as Richard Nabavi and others pointed out that this article in the Guardian is an excellent example of such a mindset.
Lots of weeping and wailing about how dreadful the cuts are and how Miliband ought to do more to oppose them.
Without the least scintilla of recognition that when an incoming government inherits a situation where it is spending four pounds for every three coming in and that the national debt has just doubled to 1.2 trillion pounds, such a position is completely unsustainable and there really is no alternative to cuts, tax increases, or some combination of both.
The nearest things to constructive suggestions to deal with Britain's fiscal and debt problems in the entire article are the references to a campaign (with which the author of the article is associated) that the government should make it more difficult for people to employ both legal and illegal means of getting out of paying tax (avoidance and evasion). As this is about the one thing that the government, opposition and press all agree on it doesn't get us very far.
While I would be the first to admit that we cannot afford complacency, Britain is showing the first signs of recovery, though things are still extremely difficult for many businesses and familes.
But if attempts to keep spending under control were abandoned and borrowing allowed to increase, it would not take too long at all before this country was in the same kind of mess as Greece or Cyprus.
Comments
So where from here? - well if the government want to show they are serious about cutting deficit spending, then why not show me? - How - well restoring sound money and making fractional reserve banking (AKA fraud) illegal would be a worthy way to start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5fHspjXw8Y
Now 0:47 -0:52 is fantastic
It is often rational for a business to borrow - and to borrow much more than a household could PROVIDED the money is being borrowed to invest in something which is likely to bring a far greater return than the interest on the debt.
It is sometimes rational for a government to borrow - and the amount of borrowing a government can get away with is far greater than a household or business can, but PROVIDED they have a plan to pay the money back based on realistic expected future revenues.
Unfortunately some people make the mistake of assuming that governments are entirely free of the limits which any sensible household or business has on its' ability to borrow.
Governments can get away with borrowing a lot more than individuals or companies can but the point at which such borrowing becomes damaging is not infinate for much the reasons you suggest - and we are still borrowing too much now.
It is never ok to borrow to consume, and well, paying welfare cheques is doing exactly that. Gordon Brown said he was borrowing to invest but did not, unless of course you class filling the NHS with back office staff and bureaucracy an investment.
Though i must admit I am most interested Chris on your view on why bankers are legally allowed to commit fraud.