There must be a subversive at the BBC, a Right winger who likes to throw the odd spanner in the works of the Leftwing steamroller that is crushing all opposition before it.
The BBC have booked Niall Fergusson as its Reith Lecturer….The first of Prof Niall Ferguson’s 2012 Reith Lectures will broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday, 19 June at 09:00 BST.
In an article in the Sunday Times (pay up or miss out) he tells us that ‘The Empire was built on borrowing, but now our (Brown’s?) profligacy has created a timebomb that threatens to ruin future generations’.
He attempts to explain the West’s decline by looking at the reasons for its past success. Personally I believe Socialism is the root of the decline….an ideology which seeks to feather our nests but without paying the cost in terms of work…..they demand more pay but do not in return produce more goods…there is no efficiency, no rise in productivity….it has priced us out of the manufacturing market.
That is by the by, what is interesting in terms of the BBC and its attitudes is what else he says in a BBC ‘Viewpoint’…..
If young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party.
In the good, but less likely scenario, the proponents of reform succeed, through a heroic effort of leadership, in persuading not only the young but also a significant proportion of their parents and grandparents to vote for a more responsible fiscal policy.
[We must] alter the way in which governments account for their finances.
The present system is, to put it bluntly, fraudulent.
Public sector balance sheets can – and should be – drawn up so that the liabilities of governments can be compared with their assets.
Here I disagree slightly…it should also take into account realistic forecasts of future growth, either up or down…Brown based his spending on optimistic growth projections….he failed to take into account ‘events dear boy, events’.
But there is also this little aside from a BBC author, note the last bit:
Defining Government Deficit
A government deficit occurs when it spends more money than it receives in income.
Cyclical deficit occurs when the economy weakens during a recession and government income falls because of shrinking tax revenues and increased welfare spending.
When the economy improves, the cyclical deficit turns into a cyclical surplus.
Structural deficit is different from cyclical deficit as it occurs no matter how strong the economy is.
It is debt that has come about as a result of government borrowing. Countries are judged on their ability to pay off this debt on the basis of national debt relative to GDP.
If a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio gets too high, investors will worry that the government will default on the debt. However, it is debt governments can try to control through lower borrowing, spending cuts and higher taxes.
It seems somebody didn’t get the BBC memo….‘Plan B for Borrow’ is to be sold to the Public.
It is debt that has come about as a result of government borrowing. Countries are judged on their ability to pay off this debt on the basis of national debt relative to GDP.
=========
Dangerous bollocks.
Debt is not borrowing. That’s the scam.
Debt is far more than borrowing. It includes pensions.
So on top of the 1,050 bn borrowing in the UK, you have another 6,000 billion of pensions, PFI, expected losses on guarantees …
Total 7,000 bn. Tax revenues, 550 bn.
They can’t even pay the debts long term because they are too large. That means they can’t pay the promised services.
These debts are back end loaded. ie. Little or no payments now, massive payments latter.
It’s standard BBC and government policy to say debt = borrowing, and its a lie.
I see this a lot but I don’t understand how they can get away with it. Why aren’t pension liabilities included in the national debt and do other countries not include theirs either? Is it because it is ‘generational debt’ that is always rolled forward?
Did a bit of digging and put simply it seems to be because you can’t really count future liabilities which you don’t pay yet and so don’t need to borrow for them yet.
We know that this liability exists but when the time comes it will be a negative contribution to the GDP and hence contribute to the deficit (and hence) debt incrementally then.
So presumably it’s not really considered cricket to add it on right now. Which seems reasonable actually.
Those future liabilities could be dramatically reduced in the case of public sector pensions if the government had the guts to bring the schemes down a peg or two and more into line with what the poor suckers who are expected to fund this massive deficit have to put up with – private sector pensions, in other words (wrecked by that great public sector benefactor, Lord Gordon of Crash).
The most interesting thing to come out of the London Mayoral elections, was the fact that Paddick could retire at 50, on a public sector pension of circa £62,000 per annumn.
Anyone here in the private sector in such an enviable position ?
Nope. And many more coppers retire younger than that – on full pension.
It’s incredible, workers in the private sector have an average pension pot of £27k, yet they are the ones who will be paying for the gold-plated public sector pensions they could only dream of.
For some years now, private sector workers have been paying more of their pay towards public sector pensions than they can afford to pay into their own.
Makes you bloody well weep….
I caught the lecture today it was something I think many should listen to.
To be honest though it was lost on the left. I loved to listen to most of the attendees who got to ask questions. One was from the International Secretariat of Amnesty International (no- me either) and someone who had been a minister in the dept of of the Environment for the Australian Govt (I don’t recall the name).
One of the things the Prof mentioned was what I think he called “extractive” govts i.e. those that take money out the pockets of it’s citizens to effectively hoard it for themselves. He mentioned the Mubarak regime but for me there’s a parallel within this country to.
He’s quite clear on what the problem is with this. Yet we had the former Australian official ask if in the name of sustainability for future generations of there should be a carbon tax.
So having just gone on about politicians robbing people of pointless taxes for their own benefit the so called great and the good ask if he recommends a tax on the people for the fraud that is AGW. You couldn’t make it up.
The best bit for me was the question about about engaging young people to play a greater role in holding govt to account over their spending plans. The prof argued the problem was that it wasn’t cool to be a conservative. The questioner made some quip that signalled his agreement with much laughter in the hall.
I would have loved to have seen the questioners face when the Prof said that “Conservatives may not be cool – but they’re right”
He then followed it up with the comment that it was much better to be uncool but right compared to cool but wrong.