Why State Finances are in a 2s8d, why the ConDems won't fix it & why it's your fault

LauraW10

Rereading my post on the folly of the G20, it seems to me that I didn’t fully convey just how crazy the demand for fiscal austerity now now now really is.

Paul Krugman 7th June 2010

Why, then, are Very Serious People demanding immediate fiscal austerity?

The answer is, to reassure the markets — because the markets supposedly won’t believe in the willingness of governments to engage in long-run fiscal reform unless they inflict pointless pain right now. To repeat: the whole argument rests on the presumption that markets will turn on us unless we demonstrate a willingness to suffer, even though that suffering serves no purpose.


And the basis for this belief that this is what markets demand is … well, actually there’s no sign that markets are demanding any such thing. There’s Greece — but the Greek situation is very different from that of the US or the UK. And at the moment everyone except the overvalued euro-periphery nations is able to borrow at very low interest rates.


So wise policy, as defined by the G20 and like-minded others, consists of destroying economic recovery in order to satisfy hypothetical irrational demands from the markets — demands that economies suffer pointless pain to show their determination, demands that markets aren’t actually making, but which serious people, in their wisdom, believe that the markets will make one of these days.

Awesome.

June 7 2010 Paul Krugman noble prize winning economist


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/


Wouldn't it be nice to have a government who had the balls to stand up to the "non-existent" bond vigilantes?

Gorgeous_George

State pensions should be paid for a limited number of years. Fifteen would be about right. We need less people and three score years and ten is enough for anyone.



GG

kabayiri

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

State pensions should be paid for a limited number of years. Fifteen would be about right. We need less people and three score years and ten is enough for anyone.



GG

That's a great phrase , '3 score and ten'.

We should make cheap booze and fags really cheap. But then you charge for people who seek hospital help from the effect of drink and smoking.

That'd help filter out those intent on smoking and drinking themselves to death. At least they'd have a booze-fuelled orgy doing it.

lostinrates

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

State pensions should be paid for a limited number of years. Fifteen would be about right. We need less people and three score years and ten is enough for anyone.



GG

On the current projections I would get a state pention at aged 68. three score years and ten gives me 2 years to spend it. Can I have the fifteen years upfront please.

StevieJ

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

State pensions should be paid for a limited number of years. Fifteen would be about right. We need less people and three score years and ten is enough for anyone.



GG

Ahh a good old biblical expression, that Methusula would have cost us a few quid in pension :eek:

wymondham

chucky wrote: »

..... only embarrasses himself with his Nick Clegg and David Cameron mancrush

not heard that one before.. I now have visions of Cameron & Clegg sat in bed as Morcombe and Wise used to!! :eek:

fc123

JP45 wrote: »

I read these same articles in today's FT and came to exactly the same conclusion as the OP.

It is absolutely absurd for the government to be telling us that we are facing the steepest cuts since the second world war, that the cuts will be applied fairly and yet at the same time to rule out any curbs on age-related benefits such as free bus passes and winter fuel allowances. Utter, utter madness.

If ever there were a no-brainer for cuts it's these age-related benefits. Many of the recipients (including my parents and mother-in-law) are rolling in money. They should be limited (like most benefits) to those in need.

We have 4 sets of parents/parents in law (as both our parents split and remarried) and the 3 sets that benefit from free travel, free swimming and so on could easily afford to fund those things themselves.
The 4th set are in a different league, however the children (this is on OH side of the family) do judge them and why they are in such a parlous state.
I confess I judge too as it costs us personally but it's famileee so we just chip in as and when.


A big reason why one half of couple no 4 is in such a bad state is lack of education. She worked public sector in auxiliary nursing nearly all her life and has no pension at all...just £20 pwk I think as the ex took her allowance...I don't really understand it....all I understand is OH (so moi) and his brother have to put in on a regular basis.

I write as the 3 sets have incomes from all sorts, public sector pensions (one has 2 no less), private pensions, a mini BTL empire (inherited so no mortgage) and whatnot...plenty of £££ plus all own their own home outright with no mortgage and easily could downsize (except couple no 4).

Any chat on TC on this thread? They have got to be sorted out quickly.

Means tested Child benefit I am all for.

fc123

kabayiri wrote: »

That's a great phrase , '3 score and ten'.

We should make cheap booze and fags really cheap. But then you charge for people who seek hospital help from the effect of drink and smoking.

That'd help filter out those intent on smoking and drinking themselves to death. At least they'd have a booze-fuelled orgy doing it.

My Grandad used to say that...and he smoked himself to death dying of emphysema at the age of 80. However, the latter decade of his life wasn't great as he couldn't really do all the things he loved as he lved on a hill above the sea and it was a steep one to climb.

I have a MIL who is doing the same and it's tragic to watch.

JanCee

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

State pensions should be paid for a limited number of years. Fifteen would be about right. We need less people and three score years and ten is enough for anyone.



GG

Will you be saying that when you are 69?

A._Badger

JanCee wrote: »

Will you be saying that when you are 69?

Of course he won't. Always assuming he survives the intervening 50 years...