Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
And the alternative was.... 
---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------
Of course it did, because of the deficit. That's why we needed to reduce the deficit. Pay attention, man!
---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------
I think the point Chris was making was that the examples you gave were fluff and nobody really cares about all that. The decision we have to make is about which party will keep us solvent, and on that basis, the Conservatives will romp home.
---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------
The debt results from Labour's deficit. Do you not get that?
The austerity was needed in order to reduce the deficit, thereby prevent the debt from escalating to levels that would be calamatous for this country. Without austerity, the debt would be far more than it is now. |
Old Boy, our fag packet economic expert, continuing to peddle his neo-liberal capitalist fantasy.
Austerity wasn’t needed to reduce the deficit (and indeed
despite austerity the deficit remains). Recognition was needed that the one off windfalls of privatisation were gone. No more family silver was left to sell. Taxes had to go up to continue paying for public services. It remains as true today as it was in 2010.
Previously, before we decided to allow private companies to extract as much of the state’s wealth as possible and move it offshore, the alternative would have been to invest in our economy. Long needed infrastructure projects would have been paid for and long term benefits for the economy as a whole would have resulted.
To say there was no alternative is absolutely groundless in economics. The government budget isn’t a household budget, however capitalist fantasists have realised this is the easiest sell to a gullible public. You don’t want the state to do that, but if they give us money we will do a Carillion and walk away with billions in the process.