Juggling Economics

Vince Cable, Alistair Darling, and George Osborne entered into a debate to discuss the economics of Britain.  After an hour of listening one thing and one thing alone was evident... they known we were in a recession.  As the questions started it became apparent that the school yard antics of taking digs at each other would occur and the two major parties did not let the viewers down.  The Liberal Democrats held off for a period and then joined in the mud slinging.

When questions of the audience called for decisive answers precious little was revealed.  For the most part each saw there is a major sets of problems facing them but none would step back far enough to see root causes and resolutions.  Talk of levels of taxes being raised in one area whilst counting on the unknown of cost savings to be found in the government departments in another area seemed to be the means to an end in removing not just the reported £167,000,000,000 deficit but also the unforeseen requirements of the coming year.  It was scary to watch as crystal balls were called upon in expectation of an increased economy none can guarantee.  The expectation they are counting on, I would like to point out, that wasn't discussed was the continued need for some sort of financial market riding in and saving the day whilst each put on the face of how evil the very same group had become.  Two of the three would seek to protect one of the biggest financial drains, namely the NHS.  I say one of the biggest as there are a few.  The Liberal Democrats correctly identified that cuts would be required but soon found areas that would support expanding the very same department.  In fact all looked, in one way or another, to increase spending despite the nature of the problems faced by individuals.

Truth revealed itself when borrowing from China was mentioned (to buy from China as Britain is not a true free market of production and competition).  What was lacking from the statement and not picked up by one representative was that this borrowing incurs interest and this is one of the major reasons to decrease spending, government departments and a bloated state of affairs.  This borrowing is so bad that those that would seek to place a credit rating for Britain (and Britain does have such rating) threatened to change it thus increasing the interest rate levied.  This would add insult to injury.  Instead of looking towards true free markets, allowing natural creation of private sector jobs through competition and removing the barriers of trade I listened as further borrowing was seen as the sensible reaction to create public sector jobs and education.  Education, I have pointed out before, that becomes devalued based upon the number of those receiving similar degrees.  To borrow more to create jobs is never a sound policy.  Picture explaining to your bank or credit card company that you are borrowing more to help the economy by employing your son, daughter or neighbour?  It is not difficult to see folly in such distortions when we place the situation closer to home, as it does come home no matter how you look at it.

One hour of apologies, toying with figures, robbing Peter to pay Paul and making digs at each other and little was seen of that light at the end of the dark, costly tunnel.  We cannot spend our way out of debt.  It is not there and then either requires more borrowing, more cuts, more taxes or, as was shown, juggling each in different ways to appease the many.  We cannot rob one person or group of persons to provide for another.  Taking from one individual, department or company (taxes) to fund something else is still just robbery.  Government grows and we pay the price.  We cannot have government taking responsibility for more and more areas without the cost increasing.  Government very rarely provides the best solution(s) to meet the needs of the people.  As I continue to point out, we are all unique and, even assuming some of us have similar wants and needs, government will never please all of the people all of the time.  Let true free trade and commerce fill these needs.  Let government assist in protecting individuals from those that would seriously aggress upon us in these transactions.  No bailouts required.  No propped up businesses in the form of "govopolies".

What would a libertarian do?  With little provided under remittance to the state then little is required in the form of monetary funds.  Businesses would grow around the needs of the people and choice or options follow from this growth.  If a business fails to meet such needs or proves to provide shoddy goods or services then another company will step in to meet the needs.  Consider again the analogy closer to home.  You can shop in a variety of shops and choose items based on needs, finances and agreed terms.  Would you ever think of being forced to shop at a government store?  Then why should other aspects of your life be any different?  Government is created among men and women out of necessity.  The more willing we are to hand greater requirements the more government must be fed and will grow until it becomes a monopoly serving less than the people's needs.  We have seen far too many examples of late whereby government has exceeded it means and became to full of itself.  We, the people, pay the price.

Economics doesn't have to be difficult.  Some common sense and understanding goes far further then what we are currently presented with.

Wormit Steve LPUK Scotland