Biggest lie in British politics...

[Power Cosmic]

Hey all.

For those who know of the Conservatives molestation of Britain, or, even more distressingly, support it, take a look at this
___

British politics today is dominated by a lie. This lie is making it significantly more likely you will lose your job, your business, or your home. The lie gives a false explanation for how we came to be in this crisis, and prescribes a medicine that will worsen our disease. Yet it is hardly being challenged – except by some of the world’s most distinguished Nobel Prize winning economists.
Here’s the lie. We are in a debt crisis. Our national debt is dangerously and historically high. We are being threatened by the international bond markets. The way out is to eradicate our deficit rapidly. Only that will restore “confidence”, and therefore economic growth. Every step of this program is false, and endangers you.
Let’s start with a fact that should be on billboards across the land. As a proportion of GDP, Britain’s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years. Read that sentence again. Check it on any graph by any historian. Since 1750, there have only been two brief 30-year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. So we can afford to run a deficit, if that has a positive effect – which we’ll get to in a minute. If we are “bust” today, as George Osborne has claimed, then we have almost always been bust. We were bust when we pioneered the Industrial Revolution. We were bust when we ruled a quarter of the world. We were bust when we beat the Nazis. We were bust when we built the NHS. Or is it George Osborne’s economics that are bust?
Our debt is not high by historical standards, and it is not high by international standards. For example, Japan’s national debt is three times bigger than ours, and they are still borrowing at good rates.
David Cameron claims that, despite these facts, they need to cut our deficit by slashing our spending because the bond markets demand it. If they do not obey, then our national credit rating will be downgraded, and we will have to pay much higher interest on our loans. But here’s the flaw in that plan. That’s not what the bond markets say. Not at all. Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist whose predictions have consistently proved right through this crisis, says Cameron is conjuring up “invisible bond vigilantes” who “don’t exist.” Who is the bond market really punishing? It’s the countries that cut too fast, and so kill their economic growth. The last two nations to be down-graded were Ireland and Spain, who followed Cameron’s script to the letter.
It turns out that cutting our deficit rapidly doesn’t cause an increase in “confidence” and so save the economy. Professor Krugman mocks this idea by calling it “The Confidence Fairy,” and goes through the historical record to show she doesn’t exist. Cutting doesn’t create fairy-magic. No: it has a very different effect.
Here’s what we learned during the Great Depression, when our view of economics was revolutionized by John Maynard Keynes. In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That’s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic break-down, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it “the paradox of thrift”: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.
Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. Look at the last Great Depression. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Herbert Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Franklin Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending – and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled. Then in 1936 he started listening to the Cameron debt-shriekers of his day. The result? The economy collapsed again. It was only the gigantic spending of the Second World War that finally ended it.
It is working now. There are enough countries in the world trying enough different economic solutions that we examine them like laboratories. which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts.
Indeed, there’s an irony here. It turns out that if all you do is fixate on paying your deficit now now now, and so you smother your economic growth, you will end up not being able to pay your debts off anyway. That’s what just happened to our nearest neighbor Ireland, may she rest in peace. And it’s what has happened throughout British history. Professors Victoria Chick and Ann Pettifor conducted a detailed study of the last ten recessions, and they found that consistently “fiscal consolidation increases rather than reduces the level of public debt as a share of GDP.” Think of it this way. It’s as if tomorrow you became so panicked about your mortgage that you decided to pay it all off in one year, by ceasing to buy food and water. You get sick, and your house gets repossessed.
So debt isn’t the problem. Debt is part of the cure. The facts suggest need to spend more, not less, to get the economy back to life – and pay back the debt in the good times, when we will be able to afford it.
I am not a doctrinaire defender of the last Labour government. I think Tony Blair should be in prison, and Gordon Brown will be damned by history for his role in deregulating the banks – the real cause of this crisis. But to claim that this crisis was caused by Labour “racking up debt” is simply false. When the Great Crash hit, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7 club of leading economies. To react to a recession by increasing spending, and so keeping the economy afloat, is the only rational response. The real criticism is that they didn’t go anything like far enough, and now Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus, instead promising merely slower, smarter cuts.
The real reason why David Cameron is imposing these massive cuts has nothing to do with the national debt or the deficit. It is because he regards himself as, in his words, “the child of Thatcher”, and he wants to pursue her agenda harder and faster than she ever dreamed. He can do the difficult job of selling that to the British people if he wishes – but he should stop doing it on the basis of a swollen, suppurating lie.


Source: http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03/29...itish-politics


___________




See, as someone who closely follows all the left wing protests and stuff, this has been more or less widely known, but that wee blog explains it in a good, concise way.


I just hate what those Conservative fuckers are doing to our country, our NHS, our schools and our welfare, punishing the disabled and ill the most. I mean, the whole "oh noes, the richest are losing the most"; the richest lost 1% of their income, after that it's the poorest who lose 10%, but whilst that 1% might be several thousand pounds, that 10% is MUCH more important to a poorer family.

Stupid Tories ¬_¬.


Thoughts?

[dr2005]

I'm not a fan of any of the big political parties at the moment if I'm honest, but that article hit the nail squarely on the head - what your actual debt figure is means absolutely bugger-all compared to your ability to pay it back, hence why Japan (the world's 3rd largest economy, it should be noted) can still borrow at very competitive rates despite such a large prima facie deficit. The headline debt figures are absurdly high but because of the way such debts are structured the actual repayments, while long-term, are sustainable. The same applies for much of Britain's debt right now and will continue to be the case provided growth prospects remain stable and consumer spending does not go into a tailspin - and the latter is where things could go very badly wrong with the current plans. It is certainly in the country's interests to reduce its deficit where it can, but this cannot come at the expense of its broader economic prospects and if you curtail the spending power of the average consumer (and measures such as cutting public sector funding in welfare projects and increasing VAT will inevitably have that effect) then you are staring down the barrel of a retail recession. That is what a number of retailers now expect to happen. While there is no doubt things couldn't continue as they were on the quantitative easing side and other aspects of the immediate response to the financial crisis, the Conservatives really have made a rod for their own back on this one and I suspect it will come back to haunt them come election time if it does all go to hell in a handbasket.

[ChaosControl]

Originally Posted by The Odinson

I just hate what those Conservative fuckers are doing to our country, our NHS, our schools and our welfare, punishing the disabled and ill the most. I mean, the whole "oh noes, the richest are losing the most"; the richest lost 1% of their income, after that it's the poorest who lose 10%, but whilst that 1% might be several thousand pounds, that 10% is MUCH more important to a poorer family.

Stupid Tories ¬_¬.

All I have ever known the Tories to do is try to cut benefits for those who need it, and to reduce or cut tax from the richest people so that inequality persists in the most drastic way.

I totally agree that when poorer families lose out, they're losing out on more. I know the country's in a mess and, admittedly, that might not be the Tories' fault. But all these blummin' cuts afffect the people who need the money most. I honestly can't see their motive, aside from pure selfishness.

[Acheron]

The problem is that the Tories simply don't care about the economic impact of spending cuts. Their commitment to cuts is almost entirely ideological. While in the medium term it is probably a good idea to reduce the deficit, the cuts reflect not an economic strategy but a commitment to a small state and a "big society". They aren't economists, they're Social Darwinists.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Acheron

The problem is that the Tories simply don't care about the economic impact of spending cuts. Their commitment to cuts is almost entirely ideological. While in the medium term it is probably a good idea to reduce the deficit, the cuts reflect not an economic strategy but a commitment to a small state and a "big society". They aren't economists, they're Social Darwinists.

Exactly - much as they would deny it and claim otherwise, economics alone do not provide much basis for their actions. I just hope they don't screw everything up to prove an ideological point, because then we really will be in trouble and perhaps joining the line of those going cap in hand to the ECB...

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Acheron

The problem is that the Tories simply don't care about the economic impact of spending cuts. Their commitment to cuts is almost entirely ideological. While in the medium term it is probably a good idea to reduce the deficit, the cuts reflect not an economic strategy but a commitment to a small state and a "big society". They aren't economists, they're Social Darwinists.

What's so bad about Social Darwinism?

It's the greater good that the strongest and smartest make it in nature, thereby improving the genetic stock of the future generations. Natural Selection is the root of genetic progress.

[Dedalus]

This whole argument, though it seems correct doesn't bode well with me. I mean if this person has all of this information then so must Labour, and so must the previous Labour government....yet they are not presenting this argument which causes me to think that there is a formidable counter-argument against it.

I especially don't like how Labour's avidance of this argument is termed as cowardly:

"Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus"

Surely there is a better reason that cowardice?

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by Guile

What's so bad about Social Darwinism?

It's the greater good that the strongest and smartest make it in nature, thereby improving the genetic stock of the future generations. Natural Selection is the root of genetic progress.

The Conservative brand of Social Darwinism doesn't ensure that the strongest and smartest survive, just the richest. And while that can correlate to some degree, Social Darwinism based on wealth ensures that Paris Hilton can survive long enough to breed while the poor but talented survive only if they're lucky.

Furthermore, should we allow people to starve/die of preventable diseases simply because they had the bad luck to be genetically "inferior"?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Dedalus

This whole argument, though it seems correct doesn't bode well with me. I mean if this person has all of this information then so must Labour, and so must the previous Labour government....yet they are not presenting this argument which causes me to think that there is a formidable counter-argument against it.

I especially don't like how Labour's avidance of this argument is termed as cowardly:

"Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus"

Surely there is a better reason that cowardice?

Simple answer: complex arguments don't work as well with the electorate as simple ones. Sounds condescending, but if you think about it a claim of "we haven't got any money left" is easier to understand - and more importantly plays on people's emotional reactions much better - than a claim of "our financial situation isn't great but it's better than it has been for 200 out of the last 250 years". Let's be frank, how many people beyond historians genuinely care about the course of the last 250 years? They care about here and now and how it will affect them, hence why the coalition government is able to use that claim of "we haven't got any money left" to such good effect, despite the fact that if it was actually remotely true we would have been bankrupted by now. It has after all been nearly a year since the last General Election and creditors aren't the most patient by and large. Yet the argument is emotive, it's simple and because of that it works. Opposition parties in contrast have to rely on more complex explanations to prove it wrong which immediately puts them on the back foot.