Johann Hari

tr3mor

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6825383/memo-to-johann-hari-this-government-isnt-planning-to-pay-off-our-debt-rapidly.thtml

kabayiri

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

.....
And in order to do this, quite rightly, we have to cut out all the crap in Whitehall and Town Halls and offload all the bureacracy in order to oil the wheels of private commerce again.
...

In a sense I can understand the need to divert public expenditure towards private companies providing services to public bodies.

But the realist in me suspects this will be an opportunity for the likes of Capita and Serco to line their own pockets; drive down wage levels; and hide poor service levels behind a shroud of contractual trickery.

Loughton_Monkey

purch wrote: »

Is he referring to his own article :eek: or something else ?

Brother Brown's interpretation of Keynsian Economics is the 'lie'. But I think the OP, hopefully, cannot seriously believe cuts should not be made.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So what caused NR's downfall if it was so successful?

You missed the large dose of sarcasm. It was the Tories calling NR successful as they called for it to be not regulated at all along with the rest of the mortgage industry.

I'm making the point that correct the Tories attacks on Labour policies are now, at the time their policies were to copy and accelerate the mistakes that Labour and most other governments were making. Lets assume that Brown had called a September 2007 election and lost. Would the Tories have done what they are saying now - reign in the city, regulate it heavily, cap profits risk and enterprise? Or was their 2007 policy platform more deregulation, more profits, even faster growth from an even more inflated property bubble?

I am entertained by the attempt to personalise the global crash on Brown when the Tories had policies that were the same or would have been worse. Brown was an !!!!, but he wasn't some kind of economic Lex Luthor....

petebates26

I’m not disagreeing that cuts need to be made – I can see that an increasing deficit is a worrying thing.

I’m in the same boat as a lot of people in that there are several points in the article that I can agree with and a lot of it that just seems to misalign and misquote the facts in order to politicise the numbers (in an article that claims this is the problem with the current government)

But to my mind, the ‘Lie’ is not the fact that we are in debt crisis – the lie is that the national deficit is the root of the problem with our economy. I’m not educated in economics like a lot of you folk, but even from that uneducated and inexperienced viewpoint, I can see that the deficit exists more years that not. So why aren’t we in permanent debt crisis? From where I’m sitting it’s because the banks collapsed, needed bailing out and then didn’t use the money to get themselves back in a strong position, therefore neglecting to rebuild the tools that are usually there to ensure that running at a deficit isn’t so much of a problem.

My concern is that we’re swallowing the lie – the lie is designed to make us forget that the banking crisis happened, instead shifting the blame between political parties (with not so much difference in their policies as they’d have us think). This means that psychologically, as a nation, we’re not focusing on a solution, we’re focusing on whom to blame. We’re not even focusing on the right problem!

Loughton_Monkey

petebates26 wrote: »

I’m not educated in economics like a lot of you folk, .......

My concern is that we’re swallowing the lie – the lie is designed to make us forget that the banking crisis happened, instead shifting the blame between political parties (with not so much difference in their policies as they’d have us think). This means that psychologically, as a nation, we’re not focusing on a solution, we’re focusing on whom to blame. We’re not even focusing on the right problem!

You don't need to be educated in economics.

You only have to take a step back and see life as it is and not what Red Eddie tells you.

Imagine, 15 years ago, you lived in a £100K house with a £50K mortgage. You earned £20K a year and had no other debt.

Over a 12 or 13 year period, you decide to (a) increase the pocket money of your idle children [increase benefits], (b) spend loads of money on Atlases and Dictionaries that your kids never read (because they are too busy with playstation) [i.e. put more money into 'education'] and (c) double the pay or your regular 'personal trainer' hoping this will make him do his job more diligently [i.e. put more money into health].

As a result, your spending has exceeded your income by an ever increasing amount. You now owe a massive £25K on your credit card with virtually no hope of ever paying this off.

This is "Crisis Number 1". Do you not think you have, so far, been a bit of an idiot? Do you not think you have 'mismanaged' your own economy?

But now your brother comes to you with the most awful problem [Banking Crisis] of a £30K gambling debt. He will pay you back eventually, but he really needs a loan now to avoid having his legs crunched into 53 pieces. So you remortgage your house by an additional £30K - meaning that you now have an additional £1,200 a year to pay on top of the almost £5,000 a year you are paying in interest alone on your credit card.

Now whilst I sympathise with you and your brother's problem. Do you not think that his was not the 'root cause' of your own economic situation? Do you not think that irrespective of your 'banking crisis' you should seriously consider your spending? Do you not think that you should wake up and consider the extra pocket money, the books, and the higher wages for your personal trainer were a little bit 'ill advised'?

Do you not think you should cut your idle kids' pocket money? Buy no more books - but sell those you have? Possibly sack your personal trainer completely and exercise on your own using a video?

Your brother is a mild irritation that you didn't need. But he is not your main problem, however much Brother Brown tried to tell you it was.

petebates26

I like your analogy, Mr Monkey.....

I would see my brother's problem as both an irritation and a blessing - in that he had highlighted to me the level of my own exposure, which i would then start to do something about - and to be honest, the first thing I'd cut back on would be throwing expensive things at the Libyan family over the road, rather than my kid's education or healthcare.

Secondly, if I'd bailed him out of the 30 grand he owed (Northern Rock), only to find he's razzed it on champagne and caviar, rather than sorting himself out, I'd certainly think twice when he came back and asked for another favour (RBS)