So, Stephen Fry has once again directed me towards a Johann Hari article today. This one, however, was rather more to my liking. You can read it here:
http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03
I know I've been critical of Hari in the past (and trust me, I still think his interview/debate manner leaves much to be desired), but that's not to say I don't sometimes agree with his political ideologies.
Anybody who reads my blogs (which, according to the website, is nobody, so thanks very much (who am I talking to?)), you'll know that my very first blog was about the cuts, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't really come to any personal conclusion as to whether the cuts should be imposed or not. After reading Johann Hari's article, I find myself agreeing with the basic premise. Remarkably, it ties in rather well to the comments I made about Margaret Thatcher in another previous post, and her hardline but misdirected approach to trying to alleviate the country's financial problems.
Hari's basic conclusion is to not make any cuts at all. Nor should we overspend. In the 2011 Budget, this country will borrow approximately £146 billion, and it is proposed that the amount borrowed will continously fall over the course of the next five years to around £20 billion by the 2015/16 budget. It will certainly spike the interest of the media as to how the government can afford to effectively scrap £126 billion worth of services. Whilst I was initially cautiously happy about the slow decrease in the treasury's reliance on the Bank of England, and subsequently the taxpayer, you have to wonder just how bad it will get before it gets better. Predictably, the loss of services, jobs (rising the unemployment level and causing the government to borrow again in order to sustain the JSA - it's like a effin' roundabout), and so forth will cause the next elected government (hard to say who if AV goes through) to start borrowing again to fulfil their mandate. To put it simply, it doesn't matter how hard Osborne tries, he's never going to get the country out of its debt to the banks, unless he can solidly explain to the public why they should not borrow money; pay off their mortgages as quickly as possible; stop claiming welfare; and also continuously re-elect the current government by voting for their local Conservative MP for the next two general elections. Good luck Georgie.
Quite simply, Hari is right. He mentions in his blog that South Korea is probably the nation recovering the best from this disaster, because they have succumbed to their inevitable fate and decided to just stimulate their economy with bailout procedures. Yes, this means more debt, but it's something that is hard to control, and further shows the world just how much they rely on bankers to keep nations afloat. In the case of South Korea - and subsequently how every other country should respond - is like a metaphor for the cake sitting in your fridge that you really shouldn't eat. But, as soon as you take one bite, it's ruined, so you might as well finish it off.
Mmm, cake.
Like I think I mentioned before, the only way that we're going to get out of this brutal cycle is to change the entire economic structure. Having an economic society based entirely on credit and the concept of continuous borrowing is only going to worsen the situation. You need to change it around. Put financial authority back into the treasury. Operate on real money again, though I'm not necessarily advocating the return of the Gold Standard. My friend said we should once, and I looked it up. I don't think he fully understood what the Gold Standard was.
Anyway, that's my point. Check out Hari's blog if you haven't already, because it's pretty good, and he draws influences and points from some proper economists and analysts - not that I'm saying he isn't one, but the key to a good argument is heavy referencing.
And yes, I'm still trying to come up with a better metaphor than the cake.
If you're a twitterer/tweeter/twitteringer/nerd, then follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie
No comments:
Post a Comment