It is Obvious

Chris Rick has got altogether too much to say

Black is white

Posted by chrisrick13 on September 24, 2015

It is obvious: I need to save some money

If the UK (we) carries on borrowing and spending then at least one of three things will happen.

The interest bill will become so large that we cannot pay it.  It might be that when the interest on our debt costs, say, 5 times that of the NHS we will opt not to pay it.

The entities that have been lending us money will see us as too big a risk and will increase the cost of borrowing from them.

The entities that have been lending to us will decide that we are too big a risk and stop lending to us.  This forces us to repay debt at a fearsome rate.

The response, and I have heard it lots, is that we invest in our people/infrastructure and we will increase productivity and GDP our way out of trouble.  In that case with just 2% GDP growth we will double our GDP in under 35 years.  In a service based economy that will mean that we will have to double our population.  I can’t drive two cars at once.  I can’t travel to work twice every day (once might be nice!).  I can’t eat twice as much.  I can’t heat my house to 40+ degrees.  So we will need two Londons, two Birminghams, two Sheffields, and on for all the new people…most of them immigrants.  Said it before.  I’ll try to double my wine consumption if that will help.  Double number of children…hmmmm.

I would also like to see some numbers about the investment returns on building a bridge/road/HS2/power station.  We are a developed enough place that the small difference of any infrastructure investment on our efficiency or output is very, very small.  Think of the bridge over the Humber estuary.  Cost a lot of money and by taking out a 30 mile drive to get from one side of Hull to the other has changed Hull a lot.  Has it doubled in size or wealth?  No it has not.  In no sense has the ‘investment’ had any net return.

So any socialist (and it always is socialists) who insists on spending our way out of trouble today is saying that they want the good life now with a guarantee that this country will crash in an economic mess far greater than Greece within 35 years.  A very selfish view.

It won’t be as long as 35 years before the crunch comes.   That number is just an outer limit.  It might not even be as long as 35 months.  At the long end there are a lot of people alive today who just do not care.  Me for one.  If it is much shorter then it could well affect 97% of those alive today.

Challenge that spender to quantify his numbers.  Force her to consider the hard decisions.  Do we let the little old lady die because there is no hospital bed today or do we let her 20 grandchildren die of Smallpox in 35 years because there is no NHS.  “What is the best way to London?”  We are here so think of a way!

It is obvious: I need to save some money – better get spending then


2 Responses to “Black is white”

  1. Will said

    ‘Investing’ in large items of infrastructure effectively results in the medium/short term inwards flow of large amounts of money thus boosting the economy. The political parties gain votes because of their masterful handling of the economy. This (for a large project) will result in a massive boost – for the period of their 5 years in government. After this point the money starts to flow outwards again, and always results in more out than in – in the longer term.

    But it is a good thing for politicians as it results in them getting re-elected. To hell to us poor suckers!

  2. Thinker said

    Just to say that increasing the population can be done by mass immigration but I’m unsure on just what benefits immigration gives. The whole subjct is a minefield with vested interests (and anyone saying no to immigration is likely to be labelled racist) say that it costs the country a bomb to allow new people in (at least initially) and the other side saying that there are immeasurable benefits to be dervived from the new people. My guess is that things are somewhere in the middle although we could of course be more selective in who we want/need to acheive our national aims.

    What is certain is that the new people will, in addition to contributing taxes if they are in work, will also needs support from the state in terms of more roads, doctors, civil servants etc. not to mention they will need housing, food etc. So not a simple calculation…

    Is it reasonable to consider that the part of the non-working population – only who are fit and able to work (any idea what proportion?) – should be encouraged back into employment? Trouble is that they have been given benefits as a right (without too much of a case having to be made) and taking benefits away would be seen as ‘hitting out at the most vulnerable in society’. To be fair, after a number of years on the dole it would be very difficult for many of these people to adjust to working again, but we could try harder with school leavers, perhaps? After all this type of workewr is already ‘supported’ by roads, doctors etc. (see above) and so the return on our investment would be that much greater than a new people from elsewhere?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: