Cameron "voodoo" economics - very interesting article

[Aowhs102]

I find it very hard to take a man with such an obvious axe to grind seriously. Its a shame that a once well respected paper like the Indy, should start publishing articles that would not look out of place in the mail (quality wise if not in political slant).

[Trommel]

What an unpleasant little creature Hari presents himself as.

I wonder if that line about slaying the first-born might be a bit close to the mark?

[JMGS4]

Fittster said:

The article is a leftwing hatchet job which doesn’t address the fundamental point that the public finances are screwed and someone is going to have to make some tough choices.

Hear Hear!!!
Whoever gets in is going to have to make some really hard hitting decisions.
Lets start with removing:
75% of all paperpushers in the NHS, at least 50% of all council and central government paperpushers, all of 'Elf an Safety, at least 50% of all Politicians, remove all illegal immigrants.

Make all constituencies the same population size (so no Labour fiddling)
Bring in proportional representation if above does not happen
Curb personal debt by not allowing credit cards at all, just debit cards payable at months end no matter what.
Make all politicians LEGALLY responsible for what they do, so we can cane them afterwards if the feck up...
Ban the words and actions "Politically Correct" as it destroys the core of GB
etc
etc
etc

[Invisible man]

They can start by reducing the size of government...we have more MPs per head than any other country, over 600 isn't it?

[Fittster]

JMGS4 said:

Curb personal debt by not allowing credit cards at all, just debit cards payable at months end no matter what.

Can't agree with that statement. People and companies should have the freedom to act as they wish even if they make unwise decisions.

I've bought things on credit before, paid for them over a number of years including interest and got on with my life. I'd be pissed off if the state banned me from that form of transaction.

Lenders should be able to lend to individuals, if they lend badly the loan will default and they should be allowed to go bust.

I fail to see why the world would be a better place if the government banned credit cards. Yes some people screw up but the majority find them useful. The minority have to take responsibility for their actions.

[OzzyR1]

Trommel said:

What an unpleasant little creature Hari presents himself as.

I wonder if that line about slaying the first-born might be a bit close to the mark?

Those were my thoughts too, incredibly crass and pretty damned nasty given the recent death of DC's son.

[Dunk76]

BOR said:

Quite a good piece which highlights Brown's lack of financial understanding.

Together with Darling, these undercover toffs have come up with NO plausible long-term fiscal plan other than vague mumblings of increasing tax for the middle class.

Little Lord Faulteroy has absolutely no personal investment in the OVERALL economic revival of the UK - whatever happens he'll still be rich, or even richer, but clearly it would be pleasant if he could help his cronies keep more of their billions.

Vote Labour, Vote Tax.

Slightly edited for comparison.

[turbobloke]

andymadmak said:

Read it. Not that impresed. The houses comment is taken waaaaaay out of context, as is the Laffer stuff and the analysis of tax/boom in the USA. A well crafted article, but only from the standpoint that he is a liberal left journo desperately looking for a stick to beat Cameron with, whilst trying to maintain a veneer of neutrality and serious debate.
I don't remember him writing similar articles when Blair was lieing to the people, or when Gordon was merrily decimating the private pensions sector etc.
Read him for what he is - a man with an axe to grind
A

Well said, but then I have an axe to grind as I was going to say it, but you said it already

[AlexKP]

andymadmak said:

The houses comment is taken waaaaaay out of context,

What is the context? Can you enlighten me because I genuinely don't know.

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The whole drive of the article is 'Don't vote for DC because he has inherited wealth and privilege and he will therefore only look after rich people'. When looking at the problems the country faces over the next decade (e.g. public finances) does it matter how much the leader of the government has in his bank balance?

Even if you vote in a pauper as PM he will leave the job as a rich man.

[turbobloke]

According to the Socialist Workers Party and Government stats, an unholy alliance if ever there was one, one group of individuals has benefited very nicely from the last 11 years and its BLiar-Clown axis of for-the-people third way socialism: the top 1% of earners, 600,000 people already fabulously wealthy.

So wtf is the author wibbling on about CMD for anyway?

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Fittster said:

BOR said:

Quite a good piece which highlights Cameron's lack of financial understanding.

Together with Osbourn, these toffs have come up with NO plausible long-term fiscal plan other than vague mumblings of reducing tax for the rich.

Little Lord Fauntleroy has absolutely no personal investment in the OVERALL economic revival of the UK - whatever happens he'll still be rich, or even richer, but clearly it would be pleasant if he could help his cronies keep more of their billions.

Vote Tory, Vote Toff.

Tell me which of the following points you disagree with.

1. The public finances are a mess because the government spends more than it gets in revenue.
2. The solution is either a) raise taxes, b) cut spending, c) raise taxes and cut spending.

As far a I can tell the Labour party think the solution is to raise taxes, Gordon and Co have made no suggestion that if they are re-elected they will cut spending.

Are you in favour of the Labour parties solution to fix the public finances?

Still waiting for BOR's answers to these questions...

[andymadmak]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well, without going into detail, Mr C and his wife own two houses, but they come from very wealthy families and as such are likely to already have, or will have interests in others, either through trusts or bequests. Thus, he may genuienly not know how many houses he actually has, but officially he has two.
Yes, it's a different world and all that, but that doesn't mean he can't do a good job for UK Plc.

[BOR]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Fittster said:

BOR said:

Quite a good piece which highlights Cameron's lack of financial understanding.

Together with Osbourn, these toffs have come up with NO plausible long-term fiscal plan other than vague mumblings of reducing tax for the rich.

Little Lord Fauntleroy has absolutely no personal investment in the OVERALL economic revival of the UK - whatever happens he'll still be rich, or even richer, but clearly it would be pleasant if he could help his cronies keep more of their billions.

Vote Tory, Vote Toff.

Tell me which of the following points you disagree with.

1. The public finances are a mess because the government spends more than it gets in revenue.
2. The solution is either a) raise taxes, b) cut spending, c) raise taxes and cut spending.

As far a I can tell the Labour party think the solution is to raise taxes, Gordon and Co have made no suggestion that if they are re-elected they will cut spending.

Are you in favour of the Labour parties solution to fix the public finances?

Still waiting for BOR's answers to these questions...

I didn't see the relevance of the questions to be honest, but if there is not sufficient revenue I would raise taxes. Cutting public spending would be the last thing I would do. The whole world is trying to reflate their economies with increased spending, what makes the UK different ?

And by cutting public spending presumably you mean state school budgets and NHS resources and whatever else that doesn't affect the rich ?

[Trommel]

BOR said:

Cutting public spending would be the last thing I would do. The whole world is trying to reflate their economies with increased spending, what makes the UK different ?

Spend your way out of trouble. Yes, that'll work.

If the idiot hadn't spent so much in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation.

[johnfm]

BOR said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Fittster said:

BOR said:

Quite a good piece which highlights Cameron's lack of financial understanding.

Together with Osbourn, these toffs have come up with NO plausible long-term fiscal plan other than vague mumblings of reducing tax for the rich.

Little Lord Fauntleroy has absolutely no personal investment in the OVERALL economic revival of the UK - whatever happens he'll still be rich, or even richer, but clearly it would be pleasant if he could help his cronies keep more of their billions.

Vote Tory, Vote Toff.

Tell me which of the following points you disagree with.

1. The public finances are a mess because the government spends more than it gets in revenue.
2. The solution is either a) raise taxes, b) cut spending, c) raise taxes and cut spending.

As far a I can tell the Labour party think the solution is to raise taxes, Gordon and Co have made no suggestion that if they are re-elected they will cut spending.

Are you in favour of the Labour parties solution to fix the public finances?

Still waiting for BOR's answers to these questions...

I didn't see the relevance of the questions to be honest, but if there is not sufficient revenue I would raise taxes. Cutting public spending would be the last thing I would do. The whole world is trying to reflate their economies with increased spending, what makes the UK different ?

And by cutting public spending presumably you mean state school budgets and NHS resources and whatever else that doesn't affect the rich ?

Are you out of highschool yet?

You seem to have a highly polarised impression of finance, who benefits from public spending and who benefits from tax cuts.

The 'rich toffs' as you refer to them, contribute a very large chunk of direct and indirect taxes to teh exchequer - as do the millions of 'non-rich non-toff' workers who earn wages, pay tax and NI and buiy things.

Suggesting that " by cutting public spending presumably you mean state school budgets and NHS resources and whatever else that doesn't affect the rich" is the only way to cut profligate waste of tax payers' money is naive.

If you don't think that there are myriad ways to reduce public spending by BILLIONS without affecting front line service provision in both health and education, you are not reading enough.

[Martial Arts Man]

BOR said:

Cutting public spending would be the last thing I would do.

Yes it would.......the IMF and public reaction would see to that!

[Fittster]

BOR said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Fittster said:

BOR said:

Quite a good piece which highlights Cameron's lack of financial understanding.

Together with Osbourn, these toffs have come up with NO plausible long-term fiscal plan other than vague mumblings of reducing tax for the rich.

Little Lord Fauntleroy has absolutely no personal investment in the OVERALL economic revival of the UK - whatever happens he'll still be rich, or even richer, but clearly it would be pleasant if he could help his cronies keep more of their billions.

Vote Tory, Vote Toff.

Tell me which of the following points you disagree with.

1. The public finances are a mess because the government spends more than it gets in revenue.
2. The solution is either a) raise taxes, b) cut spending, c) raise taxes and cut spending.

As far a I can tell the Labour party think the solution is to raise taxes, Gordon and Co have made no suggestion that if they are re-elected they will cut spending.

Are you in favour of the Labour parties solution to fix the public finances?

Still waiting for BOR's answers to these questions...

I didn't see the relevance of the questions to be honest, but if there is not sufficient revenue I would raise taxes. Cutting public spending would be the last thing I would do. The whole world is trying to reflate their economies with increased spending, what makes the UK different ?

And by cutting public spending presumably you mean state school budgets and NHS resources and whatever else that doesn't affect the rich ?

The one thing I hope comes out of the current economic mess is that keynesian economics is rejected as a useless approach. For the last 20 years Japan has been increasing taxes to pay for ever larger public spending programs in the hope in revives it's economy. For 20 years this policy has failed.

Can you name a successful implementation of the Keynesian approach? It is of course popular with politicians as at its core it suggests they can fix the world if only the spend just a little more of other peoples money.

Public finances are in a mess because the government spends more than it gets, the idea that increasing spending still further things will improve seems a trifle optimistic to me.

I'll stand with the Austrians.

[FNG]

BOR said:

And by cutting public spending presumably you mean state school budgets and NHS resources and whatever else that doesn't affect the rich ?

Ah, the stalwart quote of the Labourite. To infer that tax cuts can only be made against health and education budgets.

Cos no matter where else you look in public spending, there's just no waste anywhere else, is there? Apparently the schools and the hospitals are gonna get it every time

[JMGS4]

Fittster said:

I fail to see why the world would be a better place if the government banned credit cards. Yes some people screw up but the majority find them useful. The minority have to take responsibility for their actions.

I think you missed the point, credit cards replaced by debit cards... thus reducing the highest personal debt of ANY country in the world i.e. in GB! You do not NEED that 52" plasma, especially when money is tight. The problem is Winky and bLIAR have told the chavs that it's all possible, and the CC companies are raking it in with indecent usurious interest charges, up to 23% FFS!!!. If they could only charge 1% over the bank rate then a lot of CC costs and personal debt would be reduced.
This is the reason why CCs are illegal in Germany as the banks are regulated by government and no other organisation is allowed to give credit, thus killing CC rip-off interest rates. Debit cards are all that is allowed under german banking law (which was originally passed after the world slump in the 30s).
This is common sense IMHO!!